Frequently Offered Clever Suggestions
The Lasombra
Version 1.0
1) What is this FOCS for?
2) If a unique card is burned, it cannot be played again.
3) We should play with Card Limits (ie, quantity limits).
4) Concealed Weapon should be disciplineless.
5) We should play with "tower" decks (decks with no limit on the total
number of cards).
6) First Strike should beat Dodge and/or Strike: Combat Ends.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) What is this document for?
This document is a list of Frequently Offered Clever Suggestions that
people have given to improve the game. This document will attempt to
discuss both sides of the story, ending with the official answers
wherever possible.
2.) When a unique card is burned, it cannot be played again.
Suggestion:
To follow the storyline / background of the role-playing game better,
you should not be able to burn a unique card (location / vampire / ally)
and then bring it back into play. This will reduce the number of unique
cards you put into a deck and better follow the storyline / fit the
background material.
Response:
How does burning a bank I control (Corporate Hunting Ground burned by
Arson) prohibit me from gaining control of a different bank? (Another
Corporate Hunting Ground) The value that might be given to increased
adherence to the storyline concept doesn't make up for the possibilities
of story creation made possible by using multiple copies of unique cards
so that you can be certain to get them in play and keep them in play.
Not implementing this rule also prevents applying it in
a piecemeal fashion. Equipment burned for Horrid Reality shouldn't
count, nor should cards burned by their controller being ousted, but
this sets up a situation where cards can't be brought into play if they
were controlled by someone else that can't be applied fairly in all
situations.
3.) We should play with Card Limits (ie a 4 card limit).
Suggestion:
Playing with a card limit provides the following benefits:
a) Increased Creativity
b) Helps players with fewer cards (ie those who have spent less)
c) Decreases the possibility of Boring Decks (ie cheese decks /
degenerate decks)
d) Cards that are "Broken", aren't "Broken" if you only see 4 per game
Response:
a) Reducing the number of copies of a particular card you can play in a
deck has nothing to do with increasing creativity. Some very creative
decks can only be made effectively with large quantities of specific
cards, ie Cryptic Mission, Corruption, Shadow Twin, Enticement. If a
card or strategy exists, you can make creative use of it using any
number of copies, the only question is how many copies does it take for
that strategy to be effective, and artificially limiting or prohibiting
those decks takes away from the creativity of the game.
b) "If you limit the number of commons that someone can play, you
eliminate the effectiveness of someone who favors paying rent over
buying lots of cards."
- jonathan bradford bailey 8/18/1995
If you are playing a vote deck that would like to increase its votes
with action modifiers, the new player with Eight Bewitching Oration
cards and Zero Awe cards is hampered completely by a card limit while
the person with a little more money spent and 4 Awe and 20 Bewitching
Oration isn't hurt by a 4 card limit at all. The one who spent more
money can put in 8 vote modifiers while the new player can only put
in 4. Clearly, a card limit does not help those players who have spent
less money.
c) A card limit does not prohibit a deck from being boring. If every
action of every vampire is the same (ie, bleed with an action card) it
is no more boring if the action card is the same card every time (32
Computer Hacking) or if it is a different card every time (4 Media
Influence, 4 Social Charm, 4 Legal Manipulations, 4 Intimidation, 4
Enchant Kindred, 4 Entrancement, 4 Propaganda, 4 Computer Hacking).
The only part that may be boring is that your deck may not be prepared
for 32 +bleed actions so you will be sitting out the rest of the game
waiting for the game to finish.
d) Whether or not a particular card is balanced is not in any way
affected by the number of times per game you see it played. As an
example, it is only necessary for a Return to Innocence to played one
time for a 11-17 pool swing to take place. This swing is too much for
one card, regardless of the number of times it happens in a game. As
such, card limits will not fix the card, nor will card limits prevent
this card from being "broken". As such, the card is banned and the rest
of the set is not affected.
For more views on card limits, read Mark Langdorf's archive of articles
on the subject. You can find that archive here:
http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/.
4.) Concealed Weapon should be disciplineless.
Suggestion:
One common point of view is that it is clear that the originally
designed intent was to have Concealed Weapon as disciplineless. It was
an "extra" card for Obfuscate in the base set of Jyhad, and it was
confirmed that it was supposed to be disciplineless. However, the Rules
Team never chose to act on it and did not reprint it in the "unlimited"
basic set of V:TES. Some argue that:
Making it disciplineless would restore designer intent, which is
obvious.
It would increase the utility of weapons - actions would not have to
be "wasted" on fetching them. Weapons have traditionally been regarded
as costly and difficult to use.
It would make weapons more common, which would add variety to the game.
Weapons are often rarely seen, due to the difficult in obtaining them
in game.
Response:
The card was never reprinted, a clear lead from the V:TES Design Team.
All new weapons have been created knowing that there is no
disciplineless Concealed Weapon. For instance, Starshell Grenade
Launcher is a powerful card, but was created knowing that vampires would
have to equip it or use disciplines to get it. Similarly, the Meat Hook
is free with its own downside, but still requires the vampire fetch it
first.
Similarly, one might look at Wendell Delburton as an example. He has
significant benefits with melee weapons (+2 damage) but was again
created in the knowledge that one of a number of strategies would have
to be used to get the item on him. (His use of an action, easily
blocked with an ally due to lack of stealth (or the requirement to put
in cards like Cloak the Gathering or Shroud Mastery).
A number of clans in V:TES are balanced as they currently stand. For
example, the Ventrue are good at bleeding, voting and combat defence.
They're less good at stealth, intercept and combat offence. Giving them
Concealed Weapon would allow them to bleed, get blocked, Skin of Steel
all your damage *and* fight back with a Concealed Ivory Bow or Starshell
Grenade Launcher - potent indeed. Regardless of any clans it might
help, it would be extremely easy to over-power clans who don't need
that help.
5.) We should play with "tower" decks (decks with no limit on the total
number of cards).
Suggestion:
There should be no upper limit on the number of cards in a deck, we
should be able to play decks with 150 or 300 cards if we want to.
Response: The game was designed to be played with 40 cards, with up to
10 more per player. This balances the effects of permanent cards (ie
equipment) against the effects of the transient cards (ones that you
play and discard). The costs of the cards would have to be re-evaluated,
re-playtested, and in many cases changed entirely to achieve balance in
a game with no limit on the total number of cards that are
in your deck. Part of the strategy of the game is to manage your
dwindling resources. How much pool do you spend to bring out vampires,
how many cards do you play to have an effective combat, how many pieces
of equipment do you play with. By allowing a tower rule, you eliminate
this part of the strategy element of the game.
6.) First Strike should beat Dodge and/or Strike: Combat Ends.
Suggestion:
First Strike should work like "First Strike" from Magic: The Gathering.
You should not be able to Dodge and/or End Combat before the a strike
done with First Strike is resolved.
Response:
Richard Garfield, the designer of both games, clearly disagrees with
this position. See the Jyhad rulebook, section 15.3 and the discussion
of special combat effects. Dodge always negates the effect of the
opponent's strike. Strike: Combat Ends always ends combat before any
damage is dealt or any strike's effects take place.
The Current Rules Team / Design Team, has re-emphasized this and made
it even more explicit in the Sabbat War/Final Nights rulebooks.
See section 6.4.5 Strike Effects in either rulebook for the following
quotes:
"A dodge protects even from the effects of a strike done with first
strike."
"[Combat Ends] is always the first strike to resolve, even before a
strike done with first strike, and ends combat before other strikes can
be resolved or any damage dealt."
and finally:
"A strike done with first strike will still not resolve before a combat
ends effect (which always resolves first), and a dodge still cancels the
effects of a strike done with first strike."
And now, for a real world scenario / explanation from Reyda:
two people fight.
One punches faster than the other.
Both attempt to strike simultaneously.
The fastest puncher hit the other first. The second blow lands on him
normally though.
Now...
two people fight.
One punches faster than the other.
the fast puncher attempts to strike, while the other runs away.
no matter how fast is the punch, it will hit thin air.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Credits / Acknowledgements
The existence of this document does not in any way attempt to tell
people how to play the game in their own playgroups. This is simply an
explanation of years of discussion collected from the players that have
been online in the Usenet discussion group,
rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad.
You are encouraged to play the game the way you enjoy it.
This document is presented to forstall arguments, to collect the
suggestions people have made for changing the game, and to list reasons
the game has not been changed in those ways as given by either the
experienced players or by the various official Rules Teams from WOTC on
to White Wolf.
If you have any submissions or suggestions for things you would like to
see on this list, or a better explanation of either sides position,
please email the maintainer at TheLa...@hotmail.com.
"Jyhad", "V:tES", "White Wolf", etc. are copyrighted terms/names and are
used with permission from Vampire: Elder Kindred Network.
Last Updated January 27th, 2002.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Martin Laganičre
I agree with you on this point , but some cards should be more than 4 ; For
example corruption for the Followers of Set . If not , they become
not-playable ( Or greatly reduced ) .
ML
jeroen rombouts
"Martin Laganičre" <Settite...@Serpent.XXX> wrote in message
news:P1V48.1623$yi5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
whatsoever. If you wan't to make a deck with 90 copies of the same cards,
go right ahead. don't expect it to work, tough.
Jeroen
Thomas Pichler
> 2.) When a unique card is burned, it cannot be played again.
> Suggestion:
> To follow the storyline / background of the role-playing game better,
> you should not be able to burn a unique card (location / vampire / ally)
> and then bring it back into play. This will reduce the number of unique
> cards you put into a deck and better follow the storyline / fit the
> background material.
> Response:
> How does burning a bank I control (Corporate Hunting Ground burned by
> Arson) prohibit me from gaining control of a different bank? (Another
> Corporate Hunting Ground)
It's probably just me, but still, I guess I should point out this doesn't
really seem like a good example - after all, how does *not* burning the
first bank prohibit you (or someone else) from gaining control of another
bank?
[that is, the statement is really an argument against having unique cards in
the first place]
Thomas
Reyda
"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen.rom...@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:N1W48.99761$rt4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> *tap on shoulder* Actually, the responce is against any card limit
> whatsoever. If you wan't to make a deck with 90 copies of the same cards,
> go right ahead. don't expect it to work, tough.
>
> Jeroen
hell why not ??
a deck with 90 anarch revolt may oust someone =)
or 90 Spying missions ??
or 90 Parity Shift ??
hellt that would be funny =)
Hannigan
> "jeroen rombouts" <jeroen.rom...@pandora.be> wrote in message
> news:N1W48.99761$rt4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
> > *tap on shoulder* Actually, the responce is against any card limit
> > whatsoever. If you wan't to make a deck with 90 copies of the same cards,
> > go right ahead. don't expect it to work, tough.
> >
> > Jeroen
>
> hell why not ??
> a deck with 90 anarch revolt may oust someone =)
Surely 54 anarch revolts and 6 computer hackings would be better -
you're still guaranteed to play an anarch revolt every single turn =)
> or 90 Spying missions ??
I've seen games around here that 90 spying missions might have won
> or 90 Parity Shift ??
I find it hard to imagine actually ousting someone with that deck...
Johan Lundstrom
>5.) We should play with "tower" decks (decks with no limit on the total
>number of cards).
>Suggestion:
>There should be no upper limit on the number of cards in a deck, we
>should be able to play decks with 150 or 300 cards if we want to.
>
>Response: The game was designed to be played with 40 cards, with up to
>10 more per player.
We tried this once. No-one wants to see the 200-card, 40-infernal
pursuit deck again (shudder).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se>
"Nothing succeeds like excess"
martijn
True but the no card limit option makes making a boring deck far
easier.
We play with a 3 card limit. So let me give you the benefit of my
experiences.
While I have never made or even palyed with a limitless deck, i think
I can imagine what it would be like (having played against a no card
limit deck with my 3 card limit deck).
First of all, I agree that any card limit favours people with money to
spare as they have the resources to buy every card up to the limit
(Although not every card is worth it!!!)
However, I once played against a ventrue dom/for/pot deck and every
time a tried to block one of his hefty bleed actions I got hit with
the immortal grapple, skin of steel, pulled fangs combo... (back then
pulled fangs did aggravated damage too!) Not nice and the alternative
was being bled for 3+ every time.
This is just one example and I'm sure there are many more. If a card
limit were tpo be imposed you would at least be freed from these sort
of no win situations (and I'm aware not all deck are vulnerable to
this particular tactic, it's an example, duh!).
The down side is that some cards become virtually useless. Corruption
is a prime example. I play Setites quite often and always include 3
corruptions just in case someone plays a cheap ally or caitiff. But on
the whole the impact of the card is greatly reduced and this is a good
thing! Just like the previous example a Setite 20 corruption deck is
just plain boring which leads me to my last point....
Creativity is promoted. If you can't win by simply taking over every
minion on the table, you need to rethink your strategy and maybe mix
in some more bleed or maybe even votes into your Setite deck. Also
games are less predictable but you know your opponent won't play the
immortal grapple every single time and you block safe in the knowledge
the naste Samedi have spent there last Hidden Lurker (unless of course
the have retrieved it!).
My suggestion would be to give a card limit a try. And see if you like
it. I only play this game for fun with my mates and don't intend on
ever entering a tournament so whatever WW or other powers that be
decide, we'll go on playing with our beloved 3 card limit.
Boatdrinks,
MW
Sten During
martijn wrote:
> My suggestion would be to give a card limit a try. And see if you like
> it. I only play this game for fun with my mates and don't intend on
> ever entering a tournament so whatever WW or other powers that be
> decide, we'll go on playing with our beloved 3 card limit.
>
> Boatdrinks,
>
> MW
>
First of all, what works well in one group works well there, so
no flamewar please.
I started with a playgroup that used a five card limit. Said group
gave it up over a year ago - "just to give NCL a try" :)
We won't go back any time soon, or ever if you prefer that.
Apart from getting rid of some inconsistencies, well described in
the original note on this thread, we also experienced a horrible
increase in 'boring decks'. Now, we were prepared for this, and
started checking if there were any good countermeasures. We
soon found out that it was so, and today those decks actually
manage to sweep from time to time, mostly because we're taken
by shock when they show up. Too many of our decks include some
'cheeze hosers' and most have a tendency to be intercept and
bounce -heavy, but all in all, today you need to be creative
for sure in order to succeed with a deck featuring 20+ of the
same card.
Sten During
jeroen rombouts
<snip>
> True but the no card limit option makes making a boring deck far
> easier.
> We play with a 3 card limit. So let me give you the benefit of my
> experiences.
> While I have never made or even palyed with a limitless deck, i think
> I can imagine what it would be like (having played against a no card
> limit deck with my 3 card limit deck).
>
> First of all, I agree that any card limit favours people with money to
> spare as they have the resources to buy every card up to the limit
> (Although not every card is worth it!!!)
>
> However, I once played against a ventrue dom/for/pot deck and every
> time a tried to block one of his hefty bleed actions I got hit with
> the immortal grapple, skin of steel, pulled fangs combo... (back then
> pulled fangs did aggravated damage too!) Not nice and the alternative
> was being bled for 3+ every time.
> This is just one example and I'm sure there are many more. If a card
> limit were tpo be imposed you would at least be freed from these sort
> of no win situations (and I'm aware not all deck are vulnerable to
> this particular tactic, it's an example, duh!).
your problem here is easily solved: add more than 3 Deflections in your
deck, or enough maneuvres, or more minion taps. And you're point is that
Immortal Grapple decks are boring? IMO, combat decks cannot be made to work
under any kind of CL.
>
> The down side is that some cards become virtually useless. Corruption
> is a prime example. I play Setites quite often and always include 3
> corruptions just in case someone plays a cheap ally or caitiff. But on
> the whole the impact of the card is greatly reduced and this is a good
> thing! Just like the previous example a Setite 20 corruption deck is
> just plain boring which leads me to my last point....
>
> Creativity is promoted. If you can't win by simply taking over every
> minion on the table, you need to rethink your strategy and maybe mix
> in some more bleed or maybe even votes into your Setite deck. Also
> games are less predictable but you know your opponent won't play the
> immortal grapple every single time and you block safe in the knowledge
> the naste Samedi have spent there last Hidden Lurker (unless of course
> the have retrieved it!).
>
> My suggestion would be to give a card limit a try. And see if you like
> it.
We did, in the beginning, but this makes some clans way too powerful and
others too weak. For example, a Malkavian Stealth and Bleed deck is now
almost unbeatable, because:
1/ obf/dom/aus have enough different cards with appr. the same bleed/stealth
effect.
2/ The usual deffences against Malks cannot be addopted. the 3 deflections
in your deck are not enough, the 3 Minion Taps, 3 Cons. Boons,etc are not
enough. And you can't play a decent rush deck.
What happens in your playgroup when someone plays a Malk deck?
I only play this game for fun with my mates and don't intend on
> ever entering a tournament so whatever WW or other powers that be
> decide, we'll go on playing with our beloved 3 card limit.
I play for fun too, but not all NCL decks need to be boring. And 3CL decks
are not always more fun too play. Ever tried a deck with 10 Malkavian
Pranks? Does that sounds boring to you?
Jeroen
Chris Berger
"martijn" <war...@houdoe.net> wrote in message
news:aeb4c2b1.02012...@posting.google.com...
> "Martin Lagani?e" <Settite...@Serpent.XXX> wrote in message
news:<P1V48.1623$yi5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > >
Wasn't this the sort of thing that the FOCS is supposed to stop? Maybe if
it were re-worded to be more insulting... ;)
Patrick Harris
From TheLasombra:
I think one problem that players have, myself included, is that we've
no given reasoning for why the rule is this way, other than that
Richard Garfield intended it to be that way. But earlier in this post
(of course I snipped that out), it's pointed out that although Mr.
Garfield intended Concealed Weapon to be disciplineless, VTES has
evolved to the point to where making CW so would harm the game more
than help it. So by only having that to go on, I feel that many
players may not have enough of an explanation as to why the rule is as
it is. The rules are stated clearly, yes, but we don't have a
reasoning for why the rule is one way rather than the other, when many
of us feel that making First Strike hit first would help the game.
I think as the game currently stands, it's not progressed to the point
where First Strike cards could dramatically alter things if the rule
were changed (unlike how things are for Concealed Weapon). Of course,
there aren't really *that* many solid arguments (that I've heard)
either way; the norm being "S:CE is too frequent/strong/easy, FS
should beat it." Off the top of my head, I can't think of any
arguments in favor of keeping the rule as is, other than that of the
design team. Of course, I realize this alone is by no means a reason
for changing a rule. But I can't think of a reason not to change the
rule. It seems that it would not only help to counter S:CE, but also
make certain clans slightly more viable in combat, esp. the Assamites.
But I could definitely be wrong about this, and am absolutely open to
counter-arguments here.
Maybe it comes down to whether a player believes there is something
wrong with S:CE as it currently stands. I'll not say it's too
powerful - I don't think it is. I think it may be too easy however.
Tack on 6-10 to a deck and you can stand up to just about anything
except Immortal Grapple (and a few others more recently added).
Perhaps if it had been attached originally to a discipline not already
so powerful. Maybe Obfuscate or Animalism instead. *shrug*
Also, one note about the explanation from Reyda, what if the First
Striking minion has a ranged weapon/damage? Suppose the first minion
shoots at the second, and the second runs away. Perhaps something
like this - ranged damage done with FS *does* resolve prior to dodge
or S:CE - could be a middle ground that's acceptable.
Anyway, thoughts and suggestions,
p.
Shaun McIsaac
> Suggestion:
> To follow the storyline / background of the role-playing game better,
> you should not be able to burn a unique card (location / vampire / ally)
> and then bring it back into play. This will reduce the number of unique
> cards you put into a deck and better follow the storyline / fit the
> background material.
> Response:
> How does burning a bank I control (Corporate Hunting Ground burned by
> Arson) prohibit me from gaining control of a different bank? (Another
> Corporate Hunting Ground)
Easy enough with the "not so unique" cards ala HG. It's a bit tougher
when someone diablerizes a vamp and the thing shows up again. Or the
palace of versaille gets burned down and another one shows up, like
ppl aren't going to notice the palace is in another part of town or
something.
> 3.) We should play with Card Limits (ie a 4 card limit).
> Suggestion:
> Playing with a card limit provides the following benefits:
> d) Cards that are "Broken", aren't "Broken" if you only see 4 per game
> Response:
> d) Whether or not a particular card is balanced is not in any way
> affected by the number of times per game you see it played. As an
> example, it is only necessary for a Return to Innocence to played one
> time for a 11-17 pool swing to take place. This swing is too much for
> one card, regardless of the number of times it happens in a game. As
> such, card limits will not fix the card, nor will card limits prevent
> this card from being "broken". As such, the card is banned and the rest
> of the set is not affected.
This is not true. While making a card rare or limiting its presence
to X copies in a deck doesn't always make it fair (see RTI), it can
quite reasonably do that depending on the card's mechanics. If a card
read:
Example A
Master
Put this card in play. During your influence phase, you may burn this
card to gain 1 pool for each other Example A in play.
Get a bunch of these in play and gain 6 pool or so in a turn, no need
to do much else. But if you could only play 4 of these max, it'd be 4
MPAs for 6 pool. Which is ok but nothing like what you could do with
tons of copies in a deck.
> 5.) We should play with "tower" decks (decks with no limit on the total
> number of cards).
> Suggestion:
> There should be no upper limit on the number of cards in a deck, we
> should be able to play decks with 150 or 300 cards if we want to.
> Response: <zonked>
It wouldn't matter a whole hell of a lot if the cap was higher or not
there. 90 cards is plenty of "amunition" for a deck that was going to
be able to win in the first place. After 120 or so cards most designs
will just start getting hand jammed like mad.. and jamming up has the
amazing tendency to get ppl dead. There's already a balance between #
of times you'll be able to use a card/combo and % of times you'll find
the cards you want when you want. Still, I don't see why anyone would
really *want* to play a 500 card deck. Just how are you going to
shuffle that pile of
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
<thela...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And now, for a real world scenario / explanation from Reyda:
>
>two people fight.
>One punches faster than the other.
>Both attempt to strike simultaneously.
>The fastest puncher hit the other first. The second blow lands on him
>normally though.
>
>Now...
>two people fight.
>One punches faster than the other.
>the fast puncher attempts to strike, while the other runs away.
>no matter how fast is the punch, it will hit thin air.
Interesting. The first example above actually supports the argument
that FS should actually resolve first. After all once the faster
puncher has hit his damage will take effect immediately (in the real
world) before his opponent's punch..
The second example is only amusing, becuas FS is not tied to being a
'fast puncher' but a 'fast striker'. And in VTES terms this means
that the puncher will punch the opposing minion before he 'runs away'.
Not coincidentally, if we stand in front of each other and you agree
to run away, but only after I have punched you, I'll land that punch.
:)
T
CurtAdams
>Maybe it comes down to whether a player believes there is something
>wrong with S:CE as it currently stands. I'll not say it's too
>powerful - I don't think it is.
I think the problem with S:CE is that it's too good against *non*-
combat decks. You want to be able to design a wide variety of
decks highly resistant to combat. The problem is that there is
no cost in stuffing a bunch of Majesty or Earth Meld; they
don't jam your hand often sunce you can usually manage to
get into combat somehow and they can be ditched costlessly
and without risk, *and* you get an untap out of them sometimes.
If you have 10 deflections in a game full of combat monsters
and vote decks, you have a problem. Something is wrong
when combat is one deck of seven in tournament-winning decks
yet people have no compunctions about 10 Majesties.
>I think one problem that players have, myself included, is that we've
>no given reasoning for why the rule is this way, other than that
>Richard Garfield intended it to be that way.
The biggest problem with the first strike rule is the name.
English speakers expect a first strike to be, well, first :-)
"First strike" currently means "second priority strike" -
very counterintuitive. It should be called something like
"fast strike" or "quick strike".
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
Xian
"Patrick Harris" <pha...@sfopera.com> wrote in message
news:2d0d1f86.02012...@posting.google.com...
[First Strike]
> rule. It seems that it would not only help to counter S:CE, but also
> make certain clans slightly more viable in combat, esp. the Assamites.
You appear to have misspelled "too powerful" as "slightly more viable".
HTH.
> But I could definitely be wrong about this, and am absolutely open to
> counter-arguments here.
If First Strike beat S:CE, what combat cards available would trump Assamite
combat except for Gangrel Drawing out the Beast/Scorpion Sting/Claws?
Possibly Brujah cel/pot maneuver to close & IG, but the Assamites are almost
certain to pack more maneuvers to get to long than the Brujah in general
need to get to close, as close is the default. 8 maneuvers is pretty
standard in a Brujah deck. 12+ (or guns) is not uncommon in an Assamite
deck.
> Tack on 6-10 to a deck and you can stand up to just about anything
> except Immortal Grapple (and a few others more recently added).
Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Fast Reactions, Thoughts Betrayed, Dog Pack,
Telepathic Tracking, Perfect Clarity, Coordinate Attacks...
Psyche, Telepathic Tracking, and Perfect Clarity are the most useful because
they have non-S:CE related powers as well...fairly freely cyclable if there
is no S:CE around. Coordinate Attacks and Thoughts Betrayed are just about
as good because they're pretty much always usable as well.
Personally, I don't think we need too much more to hose S:CE.
> Also, one note about the explanation from Reyda, what if the First
> Striking minion has a ranged weapon/damage? Suppose the first minion
> shoots at the second, and the second runs away. Perhaps something
> like this - ranged damage done with FS *does* resolve prior to dodge
> or S:CE - could be a middle ground that's acceptable.
Again, that jacks the Assamites up a *whole* lot. Definitely against that
idea.
Xian
Xian
"Shaun McIsaac" <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> wrote in message
news:8f507d2e.0201...@posting.google.com...
[uniqueness]
> Easy enough with the "not so unique" cards ala HG. It's a bit tougher
> when someone diablerizes a vamp and the thing shows up again. Or the
It was an impostor? Rumors of his demise were greatly exaggerated?
Chimerstery? Massive Dominate?
> palace of versaille gets burned down and another one shows up, like
> ppl aren't going to notice the palace is in another part of town or
> something.
Maybe they rebuilt the darned thing?
Xian
jeroen rombouts
your predators malk deck brought out a Muddled Vampire Hunter whit a
consealed Sengir dagger, knowing that FS beats dodge?
Not only that but making FS really First makes the assamites too damn
strong.
Jeroen
Flux
news:a34mhc$15afv7$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de:
>
> "Patrick Harris" <pha...@sfopera.com> wrote in message
> news:2d0d1f86.02012...@posting.google.com...
>
>> But I could definitely be wrong about this, and am absolutely open to
>> counter-arguments here.
>
> If First Strike beat S:CE, what combat cards available would trump
> Assamite combat except for Gangrel Drawing out the Beast/Scorpion
> Sting/Claws?
Not even that: Disease + Scorpion's Touch/Dagon's Call
> Possibly Brujah cel/pot maneuver to close & IG, but the
> Assamites are almost certain to pack more maneuvers to get to long than
> the Brujah in general need to get to close, as close is the default. 8
> maneuvers is pretty standard in a Brujah deck. 12+ (or guns) is not
> uncommon in an Assamite deck.
Until BL came out with Shadow Feint, the only way for the Assamites (or
any other clan) to get FS on their long range strikes was Backstab, and
that costs 2 blood and is only usable when blocking.
That means that an Assamite FS deck would either have to be an intercept
deck or a close range deck, and both have enough problems to keep them
from getting overpowered even with a beefed up FS, IMO.
IMHO Shadow Feint is the only thing that would overpower the Assamites if
FS were to beat S:CE (provided FS couldn't beat Dodge)
> Personally, I don't think we need too much more to hose S:CE.
I'd say we still need a few more, but not too many. :-)
>> Also, one note about the explanation from Reyda, what if the First
>> Striking minion has a ranged weapon/damage? Suppose the first minion
>> shoots at the second, and the second runs away. Perhaps something
>> like this - ranged damage done with FS *does* resolve prior to dodge
>> or S:CE - could be a middle ground that's acceptable.
>
> Again, that jacks the Assamites up a *whole* lot. Definitely against
> that idea.
I have too agree with Xian there, even if I do love the Assamites I
wouldn't want them to become too strong...
Flux
The Lasombra
news:2d0d1f86.02012...@posting.google.com...
Patrick,
The only rule that was anywhere near as useless as the First Strike
rule (ie only 12 cards use the term at all) was the Paralyze rule.
The Paralyze rule was removed from the game when it was converted
to VTES. The same thing should have happened to First Strike.
Fortunately for those who like the effect, the current rules team
disagrees with me on this, so they have introduced 5 new cards
with the term in Final Nights and Bloodlines. In other words,
before LSJ took over as the design team, there were only 7 cards
that used First Strike. Most of them were things to do against
equipment. Continuing to use the term detracts from the game by
making it more complicated in a needless fashion. If you have a
better explanation of either side of the suggestion, you are welcome
to send it to me, and I will add it to the FOCS. The FOCS exists so
that I do not have to participate or read thru either side of the
debate.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
Carl Pilhatsch
> "Patrick Harris" <pha...@sfopera.com> wrote in message
> news:2d0d1f86.02012...@posting.google.com...
>
> Patrick,
>
> The only rule that was anywhere near as useless as the First Strike
> rule (ie only 12 cards use the term at all) was the Paralyze rule.
> The Paralyze rule was removed from the game when it was converted
> to VTES.
Actually, paralyze was really cool. You couldn't prevent, as there was
no damage, just the paralyze. Of course, the effect of paralyze can be
mimicked by clever wording. :)
I'd like to see a reprint of the reworded Rowan Ring. :)
Carl
James Coupe
Pilhatsch <carl.pi...@chello.at> writes:
>Actually, paralyze was really cool. You couldn't prevent, as there was
>no damage, just the paralyze. Of course, the effect of paralyze can be
>mimicked by clever wording. :)
>I'd like to see a reprint of the reworded Rowan Ring. :)
A number of people have argued, in the past, that that's effectively
what the Shackles of Inky-Doo are.
--
James Coupe "Never give in to them," she whispered. "No matter what
PGP 0x5D623D5D EB they do or how important you feel it is to get their accep-
D690ECD7A1FB457CA21 tance. Never kill part of yourself for them. Because other
3D7E668C3695D623D5D people will notice that part is missing before you do."
James Coupe
<ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>Wasn't this the sort of thing that the FOCS is supposed to stop? Maybe if
>it were re-worded to be more insulting... ;)
I'll see if I can reword it usefully.
(Being one of the people who drafted the Concealed Weapon wording, which
seems to cover most of the bases.)
Carl Pilhatsch
> In message <e7883b0c.02012...@posting.google.com>, Carl
> Pilhatsch <carl.pi...@chello.at> writes:
> >Actually, paralyze was really cool. You couldn't prevent, as there was
> >no damage, just the paralyze. Of course, the effect of paralyze can be
> >mimicked by clever wording. :)
> >I'd like to see a reprint of the reworded Rowan Ring. :)
>
> A number of people have argued, in the past, that that's effectively
> what the Shackles of Inky-Doo are.
Well, one could argue that way, but still it's not the same, with
clan-requirement and weapon, etc.
Carl
Xian
"Carl Pilhatsch" <carl.pi...@chello.at> wrote in message
news:e7883b0c.02012...@posting.google.com...
> Actually, paralyze was really cool. You couldn't prevent, as there was
> no damage, just the paralyze. Of course, the effect of paralyze can be
> mimicked by clever wording. :)
> I'd like to see a reprint of the reworded Rowan Ring. :)
Entombment/Coma would be a pretty good model, I would think.
Xian
Matt Green
news:%hg58.978$9U4.412@rwcrnsc54...
The A Team's Mr T. selflessly volunteers his services:
3.) We should play with Card Limits (ie a 4 card limit).
Suggestion:
Playing with a card limit provides the following benefits:
a) Increased Creativity
b) Helps players with fewer cards (ie those who have spent less)
c) Decreases the possibility of Boring Decks (ie cheese decks /
degenerate decks)
d) Cards that are "Broken", aren't "Broken" if you only see 4 per game
Response:
LISTEN UP FOO';
We ain't got not time for your noob jive round these parts. My friend,
did you NOT see the 'I ain't worth squat here 'til I bested Coupe in a
one-on-one flame war clause in the newsgroup charter?' Did you not see
that foo'? cause we ain't got the TIME to go through the arguments here
again. Dat's what Google be there for. We mostly is too busy beatin' on
Andrew S. and his crazy talk. Even he don't talk CL/NCL no more- and he
the craziest guy we got here.
But 'cause I is a charitable guy, i is gonna give you the benefit of my
precious time and spare you a few words:
a) WHATCHO' TALKIN' 'BOUT FOO'? You crazy? Is this all some left-wing
idea to make the Tremere playable? How you gettin' creative when
everyone be sneak-bleedin' yo ass wit da Malkavs huh? You started usin'
all them Boxed Ins you got yet? No, i betcha ain't. Ever seen a combat
deck win a game? No- you ain't ever either.
b) Way I see it, my box o' commons is winnin' me more games in more
different ways under NCL than it would under a CL. If you got no
Intimidations or Propagandas, 12 Legal Manipulations only cost a buck
twenty.
c) Now clear this up for me- you bored of playing 'em or beatin' 'em? If
your playin' 'em, STOP IT FOO'. It ain't clever, you ain't getting no
laydeez wit dat play. If you fed up wit beatin' 'em, beat 'em wit
something else. That's what we all do.
d) What cards be busted when you got 5 o' dem? You got some crazy foo'
messin' up yo hood wit a choir deck? You scared that a snake guy is
gonna get one yo vampires in 7 turns wit Corruptions? Me, I be thinkin
that 4 Hostile Takeovers is 'bout as scary as it gets.
You go think 'bout that before you go shootin yo mout' off and ruinin'
Mr. T.'s happy xenophobia here.
-----------
word.
mattgreen.
Chris Berger
"Matt Green" <mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c7e4a69cae93e0e961b...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>
> a) WHATCHO' TALKIN' 'BOUT FOO'? You crazy? Is this all some left-wing
> idea to make the Tremere playable? How you gettin' creative when
> everyone be sneak-bleedin' yo ass wit da Malkavs huh? You started usin'
> all them Boxed Ins you got yet? No, i betcha ain't. Ever seen a combat
> deck win a game? No- you ain't ever either.
>
Patrick Harris
> "Patrick Harris" <pha...@sfopera.com>...
> [First Strike]
> > rule. It seems that it would not only help to counter S:CE, but also
> > make certain clans slightly more viable in combat, esp. the Assamites.
>
> You appear to have misspelled "too powerful" as "slightly more viable".
> HTH.
Hehehe... you really think so? I don't think it would overpower them.
> > But I could definitely be wrong about this, and am absolutely open to
> > counter-arguments here.
>
> If First Strike beat S:CE, what combat cards available would trump Assamite
> combat except for Gangrel Drawing out the Beast/Scorpion Sting/Claws?
Why shouldn't the Assamites be every bit as devastating in combat as
Pot is now? Basically it'd add another "prepare for it or know that
you'll die if you run into it" combat deck type, just like an IG deck.
Opposing decks can still prevent damage (for those strikes which can
be prevented). Obeah would stop an Assamite deck cold. Gargoyles
would do well against them too, I think. IG (which you mention below)
stops many of the Assamite strikes. Thoughts Betrayed. Obedience.
Weather Control/Dawn Op. First Striking back at them - there are many
clans that have Celerity, so they'd have access to First Strike as
well.
> Possibly Brujah cel/pot maneuver to close & IG, but the Assamites are almost
> certain to pack more maneuvers to get to long than the Brujah in general
> need to get to close, as close is the default. 8 maneuvers is pretty
> standard in a Brujah deck. 12+ (or guns) is not uncommon in an Assamite
> deck.
Ah, but that's with the rule as-is. If the rule were that First
Strike did actually hit first, those same cel/pot decks would be
altered accordingly.
Basically they're going to get 1 strike on you.
Let me go through some things here (for me):
Backstab - must have blocked
Shadow Feint - easy as pie
Silence of Death - FS for hand or melee only
Veil of Silence - must have blocked, FS for hand or melee only
So I guess it's safe to assume that Shadow Feint is the card that will
be used. Then for the damage cards, assuming we're going for
unpreventable damage:
Blood Sweat - must be at long range
Exuding Blood - must be at long range
Vascular Explosion - 2 blood
The 2 blood can add up if Path of Blood isn't out, but I don't really
see it's cost as that much of a deterrent. So I think it's safe to
say we'd see a *lot* of the Shadow Feint/Vascular Explosion combo.
Together that's 3 blood, down to 2 with Path. Not cheap, but
basically it's 3 unpreventable damage. Also, we'd probably see Shadow
Feint/Dagon's Call to avoid being stopped by IG. So that'd be 2 + 1
unpreventable damage for 2 blood, 1 with Path.
If you were unable to stop them from doing the damage somehow, you're
going to take about 3. If they go for aggravated damage somehow, you
can prevent it. If they go with SF/Dagon's, you can prevent 2 of it,
taking just 1. I don't think 3 is too much. That's similar to, and
costs more than, a Pot strike done via IG, the difference being that
with FS you don't get to hit back if they can pop you to torpor with
their 1 strike, and after that 1 strike, if you're still there, you
can still S:CE.
> > Tack on 6-10 to a deck and you can stand up to just about anything
> > except Immortal Grapple (and a few others more recently added).
>
> Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Fast Reactions, Thoughts Betrayed, Dog Pack,
> Telepathic Tracking, Perfect Clarity, Coordinate Attacks...
>
> Psyche, Telepathic Tracking, and Perfect Clarity are the most useful because
> they have non-S:CE related powers as well...fairly freely cyclable if there
> is no S:CE around. Coordinate Attacks and Thoughts Betrayed are just about
> as good because they're pretty much always usable as well.
>
> Personally, I don't think we need too much more to hose S:CE.
All usable, I agree. Forgot about a few of those - should've checked
the cards.
Psyche - Another S:CE can be played.
Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction - Hardly see use, since you've got to
devote 2 minions to getting it to work.
Thoughts Betrayed - Nice, though pricey. Usually only see that one
played with Tremere since they can suck the blood back up, but I don't
see them often.
Dog Pack - I don't know that I've ever seen a Dog Pack. Great if you
have it though.
TTracking/PClarity/CAttacks are those added more recently that I
alluded to. They're great as well, although TT is similar to Psyche
in that it doesn't actually get your strike to hit home. PC requires
Thaumaturgy, which only 1 clan has innately. CA is similar to Hidden
Lurker/Fast reaction - you have to use at least 2 minions to pull it
off.
The problem as I see it is that, comparatively, S:CE is too easy to
build into a deck and use. Build a quick, efficient bleed deck - tack
on some S:CE. Build a big nasty vote deck - tack on some S:CE. None
of the above S:CE-deterrents are "tack-ons". You usually have to
focus a large part of the deck towards dealing with S:CE; half-assing
it just doesn't seem to work. And it's much harder to build a
non-combat deck that deals well with S:CE. If a deck deals well with
S:CE, it's usually a combat deck. Also, with the S:CE deck, if they
don't currently see any of the deterrents we listed, they've just got
a handful of discards (if they didn't overdo it). If the deterrent
deck doesn't see any S:CE, they may have a lot of wasteful cards.
Of course, fudging with the FS rule doesn't make S:CE that much harder
to add in or use. But it adds another style similar to IG, meaning
that maybe S:CE isn't quite enough on it's own to tack onto a deck.
> > Also, one note about the explanation from Reyda, what if the First
> > Striking minion has a ranged weapon/damage? Suppose the first minion
> > shoots at the second, and the second runs away. Perhaps something
> > like this - ranged damage done with FS *does* resolve prior to dodge
> > or S:CE - could be a middle ground that's acceptable.
>
> Again, that jacks the Assamites up a *whole* lot. Definitely against that
> idea.
Yeah, limiting it to ranged damage really doesn't mean much to the
Assamites. Should've read through the cards again (dagnabit) before
letting that leak out of my fingertips. Either way it does jack the
Assamites up. But to me it seems that it doesn't overpower them. I
do think some of their combos would be very powerful. Definitely.
But I'm thinking that once decks evolved around them, they wouldn't
seem quite so powerful. The way I imagine it, sitting down to an
Assamite FS deck using that FS rule change would be no different than
sitting down next to a Pot IG deck now. Again, I haven't tested that
or anything, so I can't be sure. It may be that they *would* be too
powerful. But I can't see it.
p.
(gah, was interrupted 4 times while responding here; hope it's
coherent)
James Coupe
Harris <pha...@sfopera.com> writes:
>"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> ...
>> "Patrick Harris" <pha...@sfopera.com>...
>> [First Strike]
>> > rule. It seems that it would not only help to counter S:CE, but also
>> > make certain clans slightly more viable in combat, esp. the Assamites.
>>
>> You appear to have misspelled "too powerful" as "slightly more viable".
>> HTH.
>
>Hehehe... you really think so? I don't think it would overpower them.
Dodge is one of the few defences you have - certainly against death from
massage damage, rather than agg damage. S:CE is another.
Damage prevention, maneuvering and pressing can all prove problematic.
Fight-back has a slight problem with Sideslip if you're playing a one
point claw style deck (but few people *rely* on that one point
nowadays).
Blocking with a convenient weenie is troublesome - Clandestine
Contract/Contract, Swallowed by the Night gives you a +2 stealth action
which is hard to block on rushes - compare the Brujah, who struggle to
get any usable stealth in a similar deck, or the Gangrel who pay a bit
of blood for it.
It would certainly patch another hole for them. And I don't think
anyone has yet shown, post-Final Nights, that the Assamites still suck
more than a sucky thing.
>Opposing decks can still prevent damage (for those strikes which can
>be prevented). Obeah would stop an Assamite deck cold.
True, but Obeah is limited, of course.
>Gargoyles
>would do well against them too, I think.
It's tricky. The Assamites have a number of excellent strikes.
>IG (which you mention below)
>stops many of the Assamite strikes.
The Assamites are excellent maneuverers, of course.
>Thoughts Betrayed. Obedience.
True for many combat decks, rather than Assamites per se. Though it's
probably fair to say that Assamites get buggered up more by TB than many
(Gangrel have claw, Brujah have Torn Signpost, Tzimisce have...)
>Weather Control/Dawn Op.
A situation that hoses many people, and isn't really a fair comparison.
It's trying to be a combat deck without actually going into *real*
combat.
>First Striking back at them - there are many
>clans that have Celerity, so they'd have access to First Strike as
>well.
In terms of *defensive* options - rather than fight back - Dodge already
does this one just fine.
Xian
> > You appear to have misspelled "too powerful" as "slightly more viable".
> > HTH.
>
> Hehehe... you really think so? I don't think it would overpower them.
Yeah, I think it would definitely give them too much power.
Again, don't get me wrong. I like combat decks winning more. I am all
about combat...I'm pretty sure I'm still on the newsgroup's Thug Roster.
That being said, making First Strike beat S:CE (and Dodge, presumably),
IMNSHO, would give the Assamites too much power. No non-combat-oriented
deck could deal with them. This is a problem. Every other exceptionally
effective combat style has a hole in it (I'm not going to bother listing
Thoughts Betrayed/Entombment/etc, as they're not really all *that*
effective...just the major archetypes) ...consider:
Gangrel claw - S:CE, prevent, dodge (usually)
Potence IG - maneuvers, prevent
Tremere Theft/Walk - S:CE, dodge, prevent (against the Walk)...Thoughts
Betrayed, etc. make this harder to deal with, but in the end, you can almost
always prevent the Walk
Assamite (currently) - S:CE
Tzimisce - S:CE, prevent, dodge
Animalism - S:CE
That's pretty much all of the *good* combat archetypes. Coma/Entombment
suck to be in combat with, but still lose to S:CE and dodge.
> > If First Strike beat S:CE, what combat cards available would trump
Assamite
> > combat except for Gangrel Drawing out the Beast/Scorpion Sting/Claws?
>
> Why shouldn't the Assamites be every bit as devastating in combat as
> Pot is now? Basically it'd add another "prepare for it or know that
> you'll die if you run into it" combat deck type, just like an IG deck.
Potence IG isn't *that* devastating. It *is* against S:CE, yes. It dies
against Fortitude, and lots more people are learning this. Obedience really
shuts it down, too. Assamite combat doesn't have the aforementioned
problems with Fortitude. Thus, it follows that they should not be able to
beat *something*. That something currently happens to be S:CE. And they
even have Psyche (and to some extent, Perfect Clarity and Telepathic
Tracking) to offset that.
> Opposing decks can still prevent damage (for those strikes which can
> be prevented). Obeah would stop an Assamite deck cold. Gargoyles
The problem is, if you're playing a *good* Assamite deck, the only really
good strikes you use (at long range) are Blood Sweat, and maybe a few Taste
of Death for when they're out of blood (if they've got Fortitude). For all
intents and purposes, I think we can assume that almost any Assamite combat
deck worth its salt at long range is going to be playing mostly
unpreventable. That's pretty much their schtick.
> would do well against them too, I think. IG (which you mention below)
> stops many of the Assamite strikes. Thoughts Betrayed. Obedience.
> Weather Control/Dawn Op. First Striking back at them - there are many
> clans that have Celerity, so they'd have access to First Strike as
> well.
Most of these options (except Obedience and a really awful option with
Thoughts Betrayed) are only available to fight back. Not every deck should
be required to fight back.
[number of maneuvers in a deck]
> Ah, but that's with the rule as-is. If the rule were that First
> Strike did actually hit first, those same cel/pot decks would be
> altered accordingly.
Of course, all of those maneuvers are going to be useless against *all* the
other decks, so if it were changed, I think most people playing potence
would just say, "well, I'm going to die against Assamites anyway, so I'm not
going to change the amount of maneuvers". And you're forgetting
Lasombra/Giovanni/Nosferatu potence decks, which are pretty much up shit
creek (barring Shadow Step) against the Assamites as far as maneuvers go.
> Let me go through some things here (for me):
> Backstab - must have blocked
> Shadow Feint - easy as pie
> Silence of Death - FS for hand or melee only
> Veil of Silence - must have blocked, FS for hand or melee only
>
> So I guess it's safe to assume that Shadow Feint is the card that will
> be used.
Probably. Which also limits any opposing vampires' ability to strike back.
They must have Celerity (mostly), and they probably have to have blocked.
Crappy.
> The 2 blood can add up if Path of Blood isn't out, but I don't really
> see it's cost as that much of a deterrent. So I think it's safe to
> say we'd see a *lot* of the Shadow Feint/Vascular Explosion combo.
Bleh. Inefficient. Shadow Feint/Blood Sweat is the way to go. If they
don't drop from that, and they S:CE, Psyche and do it all over again. They
have to drop pretty quickly. 3 unpreventable.
> If you were unable to stop them from doing the damage somehow, you're
> going to take about 3. If they go for aggravated damage somehow, you
> can prevent it. If they go with SF/Dagon's, you can prevent 2 of it,
> taking just 1. I don't think 3 is too much. That's similar to, and
> costs more than, a Pot strike done via IG, the difference being that
Of course, you can prevent *all* of the Potence strike. That's the major
difference.
> Psyche - Another S:CE can be played.
True. If you have 8 Psyche, and they have 8 S:CE (say), you can make them
spend at a rate of 2 for 1. Eventually, you will win.
> Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction - Hardly see use, since you've got to
> devote 2 minions to getting it to work.
True. It's still an option, though.
> Thoughts Betrayed - Nice, though pricey. Usually only see that one
> played with Tremere since they can suck the blood back up, but I don't
> see them often.
Lasombra and Giovanni can use it with ranged strikes, but once again, this
is for decks that *can* fight back. Every non-combat deck should have some
way out of one of the primary combat strategies. Basically, you're saying:
"The Assamites aren't good enough. Not only do they need to beat
Prevention, they also need to beat S:CE (and they already beat Dodge and
Maneuver)." Those are the basic combat defenses. Note that every other
major combat archetype loses to at least one of these types.
> TTracking/PClarity/CAttacks are those added more recently that I
> alluded to. They're great as well, although TT is similar to Psyche
> in that it doesn't actually get your strike to hit home.
True. Again, at 2-for-1, it'll work soon enough.
> PC requires Thaumaturgy, which only 1 clan has innately.
Though the Assamites interestingly have some THA. Zahir, Parnassus, Qadir
ul-Ghani, Al-Ashrad, and Ur-Shulgi all have qui/tha, along with Patrizia
Giovanni (ugh) and Elisabetta Romano (eh). It'd be funny to play, though I
doubt it'd work well. PC also has a high cost, which means that it can't be
used that much. At the right time, it's killer, though.
> CA is similar to Hidden
> Lurker/Fast reaction - you have to use at least 2 minions to pull it off.
Not a big deal...you almost have to have multiple minions to use the Blood
Brothers anyway.
> The problem as I see it is that, comparatively, S:CE is too easy to
> build into a deck and use. Build a quick, efficient bleed deck - tack
> on some S:CE. Build a big nasty vote deck - tack on some S:CE. None
> of the above S:CE-deterrents are "tack-ons". You usually have to
Yes, this will work. For a while. Eventually, someone will catch on and
destroy you.
> focus a large part of the deck towards dealing with S:CE; half-assing
> it just doesn't seem to work. And it's much harder to build a
> non-combat deck that deals well with S:CE. If a deck deals well with
Why does a non-combat deck *care* whether the opponent S:CEs or not? It
doesn't want to get into combat, right? So it should do so as little as
possible.
> S:CE, it's usually a combat deck. Also, with the S:CE deck, if they
> don't currently see any of the deterrents we listed, they've just got
> a handful of discards (if they didn't overdo it). If the deterrent
> deck doesn't see any S:CE, they may have a lot of wasteful cards.
Most of the anti-S:CE cards are always useful. Almost every single one has
an additional (side-) effect that is beneficial to the deck. If you include
between 8 to 12 in a combat deck, they should almost always work, if your
deck is built to use them right.
> Of course, fudging with the FS rule doesn't make S:CE that much harder
> to add in or use. But it adds another style similar to IG, meaning
> that maybe S:CE isn't quite enough on it's own to tack onto a deck.
If First Strike beats everything, again, what could a *non-combat* deck use
to beat the Assamites? Please, answer this. Obedience doesn't count, as
that can be used against any combat deck. Thoughts Betrayed would work,
sort of, but once the Assamite catches on, he can just stay at close, hand
strike, Blur, press, hand strike, etc. With that *and* the 2 blood cost for
TB, the opposing vampire is going to be gone fast.
> Assamites up. But to me it seems that it doesn't overpower them. I
It does. :)
> sitting down next to a Pot IG deck now. Again, I haven't tested that
> or anything, so I can't be sure. It may be that they *would* be too
> powerful. But I can't see it.
Try testing it if you're able. I don't think you're going to get too many
volunteers, but you might. Then build a deck to break it, if you can. At
minimum, run a few combats with sample minions and see what happens. I
would think that something like:
4 Haven Uncovered
12 Bum's Rush/Clandestine Contract
12 Blood Sweat
6 Taste of Death
12 Shadow Feint
8 Blur
12 Flash
Would be sufficient to prove just how wrong the idea is. Again, the
question is: "What could a non-combat deck use to survive this?"
Xian
Answer: nothing.
Carl Pilhatsch
Almost, but not quite.
Both cards cost blood from the vampire, and paralyze meant that the
paralzying equipment (Rowan Ring, old Stake) were given to the victim
and the victim didn't untap as normal. That was quite a good
simulation of being helpless in torpor when staked (RPG-wise, though
I'm not an RPG gamer).
Carl
James Coupe
or anything.
In message <a37fpf$14o432$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de>, Xian
<xi...@waste.org> writes:
> This is a problem. Every other exceptionally
>effective combat style has a hole in it (I'm not going to bother listing
>Thoughts Betrayed/Entombment/etc, as they're not really all *that*
>effective...just the major archetypes) ...consider:
Hmm... I know I started it, but we need to come up with a better term
than hole.
>Most of these options (except Obedience and a really awful option with
>Thoughts Betrayed) are only available to fight back. Not every deck should
>be required to fight back.
Given the Assamites reliance on strike cards for their strike effects,
I'm not sure TB is *that* bad against them. They don't have many useful
offensive non-strike combat effects - Thin Blood and Wave of Lethargy
are about it/
>going to change the amount of maneuvers". And you're forgetting
>Lasombra/Giovanni/Nosferatu potence decks, which are pretty much up shit
>creek (barring Shadow Step) against the Assamites as far as maneuvers go.
The Giovanni do have a hard time, yep. I'd've loved to have seen a
Giovanni card that did something similar to Gleam of Red Eyes. Or an
ally you could tap, a la Survivalist. Oh well.
However, the Nosferatu have Obfuscate for Behind You (first round),
Swallowed by the Night (superior) and Fear of the Void Below (1 blood).
Combined with Terror Frenzy and/or Drawing out the Beast as appropriate,
they have a good chance of setting range.
>4 Haven Uncovered
>12 Bum's Rush/Clandestine Contract
>12 Blood Sweat
>6 Taste of Death
>12 Shadow Feint
>8 Blur
>12 Flash
>
>Would be sufficient to prove just how wrong the idea is. Again, the
>question is: "What could a non-combat deck use to survive this?"
Mariel Lady Thunder with a Secure Haven, of course. Don't you guys know
nothing?
Xian
> A few points I disagree with, rather than challenging the whole article
> or anything.
> Given the Assamites reliance on strike cards for their strike effects,
> I'm not sure TB is *that* bad against them. They don't have many useful
> offensive non-strike combat effects - Thin Blood and Wave of Lethargy
> are about it/
And Blur. :)
No, TB is *okay* against the Assamites, but it's not something that a
*non-combat* deck should be reasonably expected to include, hmm? And
assuming the Assamite doesn't maneuver to long once he sees the TB played,
that's a cost of at least 3 blood (2 for the TB, 1 hand strike, assuming no
other defense) to not get hammered. TB isn't really a winning option there.
> The Giovanni do have a hard time, yep. I'd've loved to have seen a
> Giovanni card that did something similar to Gleam of Red Eyes. Or an
> ally you could tap, a la Survivalist. Oh well.
Yah. Though they are okay at TB/Thrown Gate/Taste.
> >Would be sufficient to prove just how wrong the idea is. Again, the
> >question is: "What could a non-combat deck use to survive this?"
>
> Mariel Lady Thunder with a Secure Haven, of course. Don't you guys know
> nothing?
Heh. That would be pretty funny. For the first rush against another
minion. :)
Xian
Xian
>
> Almost, but not quite.
> Both cards cost blood from the vampire, and paralyze meant that the
> paralzying equipment (Rowan Ring, old Stake) were given to the victim
> and the victim didn't untap as normal. That was quite a good
> simulation of being helpless in torpor when staked (RPG-wise, though
> I'm not an RPG gamer).
I just meant as far as wording, Carl. :)
Rowan Ring
Equipment
1 pool
Unique melee weapon.
Send the opposing vampire into torpor as a strike. If the strike is
successful, transfer this card to that vampire, and he or she doesn't untap
as normal during the untap phase as long as he or she remains in torpor.
Combined wording from Entombment and Wooden Stake. :) I'm sure someone has
already figured this wording out, or something better, but I just thought
I'd post it for the heck of it.
Xian
Patrick Harris
> > "Patrick Harris" <pha...@sfopera.com> ...
*snip*
> That being said, making First Strike beat S:CE (and Dodge, presumably),
> IMNSHO, would give the Assamites too much power. No non-combat-oriented
> deck could deal with them. This is a problem. Every other exceptionally
> effective combat style has a hole in it (I'm not going to bother listing
> Thoughts Betrayed/Entombment/etc, as they're not really all *that*
> effective...just the major archetypes) ...consider:
>
> Gangrel claw - S:CE, prevent, dodge (usually)
> Potence IG - maneuvers, prevent
> Tremere Theft/Walk - S:CE, dodge, prevent (against the Walk)...Thoughts
> Betrayed, etc. make this harder to deal with, but in the end, you can almost
> always prevent the Walk
> Assamite (currently) - S:CE
> Tzimisce - S:CE, prevent, dodge
> Animalism - S:CE
>
> That's pretty much all of the *good* combat archetypes. Coma/Entombment
> suck to be in combat with, but still lose to S:CE and dodge.
True, true. But look at your list there. Out of the 7 (including
Coma/Entombment for now) archetypes you list, 6 are foiled by S:CE. 6
of 7! There are other options, of course, but I think S:CE is far and
away the easiest.
> > Why shouldn't the Assamites be every bit as devastating in combat as
> > Pot is now? Basically it'd add another "prepare for it or know that
> > you'll die if you run into it" combat deck type, just like an IG deck.
>
> Potence IG isn't *that* devastating. It *is* against S:CE, yes. It dies
> against Fortitude, and lots more people are learning this. Obedience really
> shuts it down, too. Assamite combat doesn't have the aforementioned
> problems with Fortitude. Thus, it follows that they should not be able to
> beat *something*. That something currently happens to be S:CE. And they
> even have Psyche (and to some extent, Perfect Clarity and Telepathic
> Tracking) to offset that.
No, Potence IG combat isn't *that* devastating. But I think Assamite
combat should be on par with it, and right now I don't think it is.
> > Opposing decks can still prevent damage (for those strikes which can
> > be prevented). Obeah would stop an Assamite deck cold. Gargoyles
>
> The problem is, if you're playing a *good* Assamite deck, the only really
> good strikes you use (at long range) are Blood Sweat, and maybe a few Taste
> of Death for when they're out of blood (if they've got Fortitude). For all
> intents and purposes, I think we can assume that almost any Assamite combat
> deck worth its salt at long range is going to be playing mostly
> unpreventable. That's pretty much their schtick.
>
> > would do well against them too, I think. IG (which you mention below)
> > stops many of the Assamite strikes. Thoughts Betrayed. Obedience.
> > Weather Control/Dawn Op. First Striking back at them - there are many
> > clans that have Celerity, so they'd have access to First Strike as
> > well.
>
> Most of these options (except Obedience and a really awful option with
> Thoughts Betrayed) are only available to fight back. Not every deck should
> be required to fight back.
I agree with you here. But also, I don't think a deck should be able
to add S:CE as a second-thought, to take care of the threat from 6/7
of the combat archetypes we see. I do agree that each deck/clan
should be able to do *something* about each combat archetype. I just
don't like that 1 thing throws a wet blanket on most of them.
> [number of maneuvers in a deck]
> > Ah, but that's with the rule as-is. If the rule were that First
> > Strike did actually hit first, those same cel/pot decks would be
> > altered accordingly.
>
> Of course, all of those maneuvers are going to be useless against *all* the
> other decks, so if it were changed, I think most people playing potence
> would just say, "well, I'm going to die against Assamites anyway, so I'm not
> going to change the amount of maneuvers".
Yeah, it'd be rough. Maybe mixing in some permanent maneuvers or
something. I don't know. Of course, IG combat may just be weak
against FS combat. *shrug*
> And you're forgetting
> Lasombra/Giovanni/Nosferatu potence decks, which are pretty much up shit
> creek (barring Shadow Step) against the Assamites as far as maneuvers go.
Well, Lasombra and Giovanni have Dominate, which allows for Thoughts
Betrayed (which you mention below) and Obedience. I think the combat
decks would have TB, and the non-combat decks would have Obedience.
Also, the Lasombra combat probably *would* have Shadow Step in there.
Nosferatu have their 'combat is at short range' permanents, plus
things like Patagia or IR Goggles. Not a great answer, but all I can
think of. So maybe they're just weak against FS combat as well.
For non-combat decks though, again, I agree with you. They should be
able to do something to foil FS (as it's proposed). Obedience is an
answer for Dominate decks, but you're right, we need more.
*snip*
> > So I guess it's safe to assume that Shadow Feint is the card that will
> > be used.
>
> Probably. Which also limits any opposing vampires' ability to strike back.
> They must have Celerity (mostly), and they probably have to have blocked.
> Crappy.
It only limits their ability to strike back if the vampire using
Shadow Feint can incapacitate the target with it's First Strike.
> > The 2 blood can add up if Path of Blood isn't out, but I don't really
> > see it's cost as that much of a deterrent. So I think it's safe to
> > say we'd see a *lot* of the Shadow Feint/Vascular Explosion combo.
>
> Bleh. Inefficient. Shadow Feint/Blood Sweat is the way to go. If they
> don't drop from that, and they S:CE, Psyche and do it all over again. They
> have to drop pretty quickly. 3 unpreventable.
Okay, I'll go with you.
3 unpreventable from a 4 card setup (rush, maneuver, SF, BS) costing 2
blood (1 if you have Path of Blood).
The target can hit back if they have a ranged attack, but the way
things are, FS combat just seems to come out ahead against other
combat decks. So I'll just say the Assamite will most likey kill the
other combat deck, nevermind if the non-FS deck has ranged strikes as
well.
> > If you were unable to stop them from doing the damage somehow, you're
> > going to take about 3. If they go for aggravated damage somehow, you
> > can prevent it. If they go with SF/Dagon's, you can prevent 2 of it,
> > taking just 1. I don't think 3 is too much. That's similar to, and
> > costs more than, a Pot strike done via IG, the difference being that
>
> Of course, you can prevent *all* of the Potence strike. That's the major
> difference.
True, but with no counterstrike whatsoever, other than a hand strike.
> > Psyche - Another S:CE can be played.
>
> True. If you have 8 Psyche, and they have 8 S:CE (say), you can make them
> spend at a rate of 2 for 1. Eventually, you will win.
Agreed.
I guess in addition (hoho! more changes!) to the rule change
proposed, I'd also want additional non-S:CE counters to FS that would,
while leaving it powerful, allow each style to have an "out" if they
choose to use it. Maybe something as simple as "opposing vampires
cannot use First Strike", which would still allow for S:CE to be
tacked on, but would require the new card(s) as well.
> > Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction - Hardly see use, since you've got to
> > devote 2 minions to getting it to work.
>
> True. It's still an option, though.
Yep. But those will hose a lot of things, FS combat included.
> > Thoughts Betrayed - Nice, though pricey. Usually only see that one
> > played with Tremere since they can suck the blood back up, but I don't
> > see them often.
>
> Lasombra and Giovanni can use it with ranged strikes, but once again, this
> is for decks that *can* fight back. Every non-combat deck should have some
> way out of one of the primary combat strategies. Basically, you're saying:
>
> "The Assamites aren't good enough. Not only do they need to beat
> Prevention, they also need to beat S:CE (and they already beat Dodge and
> Maneuver)." Those are the basic combat defenses. Note that every other
> major combat archetype loses to at least one of these types.
No, what I'm saying is that S:CE covers too many things, basically
most combat. I think decks shouldn't be dealt with based on whether
they're non-combat or combat. Instead, they should be based on the
archetype - whether they're a vote deck, a bleed deck, an IG combat
deck, a FS combat deck, a claws combat deck, an intercept/wall deck,
etc.
Just like the deck that ignores vote defense will likely get aced by a
vote deck if one shows up, a deck that ignores FS combat should be
hosed by one. Same against IG or claws or stealth bleed. But the way
it is now, you can take care of almost every combat archetype with
just S:CE. It lumps almost all of them together and basically says
"this 1 thing takes care of all those".
So I guess I'm wanting players to have to choose more carefully what
they put in the decks. The FS rule change would mean S:CE would then
have 2 combat archetypes that it'd fail against, so maybe it alone
isn't enough.
With that change though, I now think you may be right about Assamites
being too powerful, although I don't think by much. Slightly too
powerful. With the rule change, maybe 1 or 2 cards would need to be
added to balance FS. And like I said, it may be as simple as a card
that prohibits First Strike. Although S:CE could still cover many
things, you'd have to decide whether to include the new card(s) to
deal with FS combat, or ignore it and hope you don't see a FS deck.
*snip*
> > PC requires Thaumaturgy, which only 1 clan has innately.
>
> Though the Assamites interestingly have some THA. Zahir, Parnassus, Qadir
> ul-Ghani, Al-Ashrad, and Ur-Shulgi all have qui/tha, along with Patrizia
> Giovanni (ugh) and Elisabetta Romano (eh). It'd be funny to play, though I
> doubt it'd work well. PC also has a high cost, which means that it can't be
> used that much. At the right time, it's killer, though.
>
> > CA is similar to Hidden
> > Lurker/Fast reaction - you have to use at least 2 minions to pull it off.
>
> Not a big deal...you almost have to have multiple minions to use the Blood
> Brothers anyway.
True. I haven't seen enough of these in action, but it seems like for
the most part you're using the same amount of minions for half the
prey-ousting actions. That's just a first impression though, and
could be way off base.
> > The problem as I see it is that, comparatively, S:CE is too easy to
> > build into a deck and use. Build a quick, efficient bleed deck - tack
> > on some S:CE. Build a big nasty vote deck - tack on some S:CE. None
> > of the above S:CE-deterrents are "tack-ons". You usually have to
>
> Yes, this will work. For a while. Eventually, someone will catch on and
> destroy you.
That's kind of a metagame thing though. If everyone decides to screw
the S:CE decks, they will (same for any deck type). If 1 or 2, or
even a handful of people decide to do something about S:CE, they may
or may not succeed, depending on seating, etc. They may also screw
*themselves* if they don't see S:CE.
> > focus a large part of the deck towards dealing with S:CE; half-assing
> > it just doesn't seem to work. And it's much harder to build a
> > non-combat deck that deals well with S:CE. If a deck deals well with
>
> Why does a non-combat deck *care* whether the opponent S:CEs or not? It
> doesn't want to get into combat, right? So it should do so as little as
> possible.
Yeah, I don't know what I meant to say there. I think I was imagining
a scenario of a bleed or vote deck trying to tap out a Gangrel wall
deck to be able to take a successful action, but the Gangrel wall is
using Earth Meld. That's only 1 deck type though, so I still don't
know why I said that. Let's just call that a "senior moment".
> > S:CE, it's usually a combat deck. Also, with the S:CE deck, if they
> > don't currently see any of the deterrents we listed, they've just got
> > a handful of discards (if they didn't overdo it). If the deterrent
> > deck doesn't see any S:CE, they may have a lot of wasteful cards.
>
> Most of the anti-S:CE cards are always useful. Almost every single one has
> an additional (side-) effect that is beneficial to the deck. If you include
> between 8 to 12 in a combat deck, they should almost always work, if your
> deck is built to use them right.
Well, yes and no. IG is wasted if you don't see S:CE. It won't
necessarily clog your hand, as you can still use it, but it isn't
really helping anything. Thought's Betrayed is worse, as you're not
likely to pay the 2 blood just to get it out of your hand, so you
clog. Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction aren't terrible if you don't see
S:CE, by why use them and 2 minions if 1 minion will work?
> > Of course, fudging with the FS rule doesn't make S:CE that much harder
> > to add in or use. But it adds another style similar to IG, meaning
> > that maybe S:CE isn't quite enough on it's own to tack onto a deck.
>
> If First Strike beats everything, again, what could a *non-combat* deck use
> to beat the Assamites? Please, answer this.
Gah, I can't! =)
I don't really want FS combat to beat everything though. I want it to
beat S:CE. Hell, make it beat S:CE but not Dodge. But again we go
back to the Assamites, who don't care if you Dodge anyway and who
already negate damage prevention, which is why I now think maybe a
couple of cards would have to be added in addition to changing the FS
rule.
> Obedience doesn't count, as
> that can be used against any combat deck. Thoughts Betrayed would work,
> sort of, but once the Assamite catches on, he can just stay at close, hand
> strike, Blur, press, hand strike, etc. With that *and* the 2 blood cost for
> TB, the opposing vampire is going to be gone fast.
TB works because against FS you still get to strike back. So even if
they stay at close (not cycling those maneuver cards) and try to Blur,
you're out of combat after the first strike they throw, which was only
1 damage anyway because they couldn't throw down the whammy on you.
The 2 blood cost is restrictive though, since they can Psyche! for
free and you'd have to pay another 2. Tremere would love it, but who
wants to play them? =)
> > Assamites up. But to me it seems that it doesn't overpower them. I
>
> It does. :)
Barely!
> > sitting down next to a Pot IG deck now. Again, I haven't tested that
> > or anything, so I can't be sure. It may be that they *would* be too
> > powerful. But I can't see it.
>
> Try testing it if you're able. I don't think you're going to get too many
> volunteers, but you might. Then build a deck to break it, if you can. At
> minimum, run a few combats with sample minions and see what happens. I
> would think that something like:
>
> 4 Haven Uncovered
> 12 Bum's Rush/Clandestine Contract
> 12 Blood Sweat
> 6 Taste of Death
> 12 Shadow Feint
> 8 Blur
> 12 Flash
>
> Would be sufficient to prove just how wrong the idea is. Again, the
> question is: "What could a non-combat deck use to survive this?"
Hehehe...
1st game, the answer is Anarch Revolt+Smiling Jack
2nd game, the answer is to make sure they get 2 each of Yusuf and
Melek, then bleed them out quickly before they get on their feet.
Ha ha, I know, I know! I'm doin' it.
p.
Flux
news:2d0d1f86.0201...@posting.google.com:
>> "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote ...
>> > "Patrick Harris" <pha...@sfopera.com> ...
>> > Of course, fudging with the FS rule doesn't make S:CE that much
>> > harder to add in or use. But it adds another style similar to IG,
>> > meaning that maybe S:CE isn't quite enough on it's own to tack onto
>> > a deck.
>>
>> If First Strike beats everything, again, what could a *non-combat*
>> deck use to beat the Assamites? Please, answer this.
>
> Gah, I can't! =)
> I don't really want FS combat to beat everything though. I want it to
> beat S:CE. Hell, make it beat S:CE but not Dodge. But again we go
> back to the Assamites, who don't care if you Dodge anyway and who
> already negate damage prevention, which is why I now think maybe a
> couple of cards would have to be added in addition to changing the FS
> rule.
Why not make FS S:CE beat 'normal' S:CE, then give a couple of FS cards to
S:CE disciplines? Maybe limit those new FS cards so they couldn't be too
abused for combat (like a reaction card: 'This minion gets FS on any
strike to end combat until the end of the action' - to avoid every combat
deck having FS too). And keep FS from beating Dodge, then you'd have two
ways to beat FS: with Dodge, leaving you vulnerable to Additional Strikes,
or with FS + S:CE, which would require an extra card.
Flux
Carl Pilhatsch
> "Carl Pilhatsch" <carl.pi...@chello.at> wrote in message
> news:e7883b0c.02013...@posting.google.com...
> > "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message
> news:<a36cf7$15ov88$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > Entombment/Coma would be a pretty good model, I would think.
> >
> > Almost, but not quite.
> > Both cards cost blood from the vampire, and paralyze meant that the
> > paralzying equipment (Rowan Ring, old Stake) were given to the victim
> > and the victim didn't untap as normal. That was quite a good
> > simulation of being helpless in torpor when staked (RPG-wise, though
> > I'm not an RPG gamer).
>
> I just meant as far as wording, Carl. :)
Um, yes, got it. ;)
> Rowan Ring
> Equipment
> 1 pool
> Unique melee weapon.
> Send the opposing vampire into torpor as a strike. If the strike is
> successful, transfer this card to that vampire, and he or she doesn't untap
> as normal during the untap phase as long as he or she remains in torpor.
>
> Combined wording from Entombment and Wooden Stake. :) I'm sure someone has
> already figured this wording out, or something better, but I just thought
> I'd post it for the heck of it.
Sounds good. I want my Rowan Ring back in the Camarilla Set. :)
To hell with the weenie prevention decks. ;)
Carl
James Coupe
Harris <pha...@sfopera.com> writes:
>No, Potence IG combat isn't *that* devastating. But I think Assamite
>combat should be on par with it, and right now I don't think it is.
Potence IG is foiled by prevent and maneuvers.
Assamite combat should usually be doing fine for maneuvers. Defensive
decks won't have many (though possibly some); offensive decks, well,
it's a similar situation to the Potence IG deck.
The Potence deck is foiled by prevent. The Assamite deck is foiled by
S:CE, because it can do shed-loads of unpreventable damage.
If it could also easily prevent S:CE, it would not be on a par with
Potence IG.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Andrew S. and his crazy talk. Even he don't talk CL/NCL no more-
>and he the craziest guy we got here.
This FOCS stuff hasn't improved since the last time but I'll bite.
Let's start by looking at the Watford tournament which you attended
last weekend. This was won by Pierre Rebstock's deck which is built
around huge quantities of Bloodform and Weather Control. One is rare
and the other is uncommon, right? Q.E.D.
But that was too easy. Let's have some more crazy talk.
The published game is broken without additional patches to stop
unlimited cycling. VEKN mostly uses NRA but, where there is a
loophole in this as above, or as in the case of the Soul Gem decks,
then you have decks which CL advocates would see as proof positive of
their case. The argument isn't CL vs NCL. It's CL vs NRA. A CL is
cleaner, simpler, more practical and seems to work about as well.
For an example of a workable CL, see the recent report of the
Battlecry tournament in NZ. This used a clever format which minimises
down-time for players that have been ousted. It also used a CL of 5.
The winner was another Andrew S. (no relation) who used two decks
during the event. Neither of these was Malkavian Sneak+Bleed. One
was a Tremere Bruise and Bleed deck containing many combat cards
including just three Weather Control. And the other was a antitribu
Ventrue deck based upon Dramatic Upheaval - a VP stealing archetype
that I've not seen before. These seem just as interesting and
imaginative as the NCL decks.
Now I'm open-minded about this matter but the practical problem is
that the NCL metagame seems to push you to either amass a huge
collection (10,000+ cards seems typical) or to specialise in one or
two clans/decks. In a game with about 30 different clans, the latter
is annoying because it means that most cards that you buy in boosters
are no use to you. I've bought a few Bloodlines boosters but most of
the cards are useless to me. Unless I can get cheap boxes, then
buying large multiples of particular singles seems to be the way to
go. NCL means that when you find a source of a particularly good
single, you buy _all_ of them. I currently have 8 Weather Control and
0 Bloodform. This is nowhere near enough to make Pierre's deck but I
don't want to trade them away as this would close the door to ever
being able to make it. If there were a CL of 5, say, then I'd happily
trade away some of the Weather Controls for something else. The
market would have more liquidity and that's a good thing.
You see, the apparent freedom of NCL is illusory if you can't easily
get the large numbers of cards required to make the decks which take
advantage of it. David Hammond talks of True Brujah decks with 30
copies of Rewind Time - another rare. That might be a feasible target
for a Prince Suitcase like him now that he's cornered the market in
this card but it's crazy talk AFAIC. Likewise, talk of what happens
when you have multiple Siren's Lure or Blissful Agony is more
daydreaming when they are both rare too - I don't have a single copy
of either of them.
After some initial caution, I was willing to buy into Decipher's LotR
CCG recently because I found that it played well out of a starter and
you didn't need much more than one of each rare to feel competitive.
And there's no arbitrary deck limit - I can put as many cards in my
deck as I like (and I like a lot - no-one's going to run me out of
cards).
I can see me collecting more copies of some rares but that's ok
because the game has a CL of 4 and that's a fairly easy number to buy
or trade for. I expect to be picking a copy of the Balrog in Scrye
shortly and don't feel any need to get more than one copy - you're
fairly sure to be able to play it when you want it and, in any case,
it's going to be a common in the next set. The game is selling like
hot cakes because it has successfully addressed the concerns of the
wary CCG consumer in this way. The Buffy CCG, by contrast, is scaring
off potential players in a big way. While it only has a CL of 3, the
horrible starters, promos and URs make it clear that getting hold of
the cards you want is going to be a pain. You'd have to be crazy to
get into that game. I must be strong ...
Andrew
Xian
> > "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote ...
> > Gangrel claw - S:CE, prevent, dodge (usually)
> > Potence IG - maneuvers, prevent
> > Tremere Theft/Walk - S:CE, dodge, prevent (against the Walk)...Thoughts
> > Betrayed, etc. make this harder to deal with, but in the end, you can almost
> > always prevent the Walk
> > Assamite (currently) - S:CE
> > Tzimisce - S:CE, prevent, dodge
> > Animalism - S:CE
> >
> > That's pretty much all of the *good* combat archetypes. Coma/Entombment
> > suck to be in combat with, but still lose to S:CE and dodge.
>
> True, true. But look at your list there. Out of the 7 (including
> Coma/Entombment for now) archetypes you list, 6 are foiled by S:CE. 6
> of 7! There are other options, of course, but I think S:CE is far and
> away the easiest.
Of course, all of those except Animalism and Gangrel claw have a
1-for-1 method of beating S:CE, or better.
*Tremere - Thoughts Betrayed kills S:CE, Telepathic Tracking is
1-for-1.
*Assamite - Psyche is 1-for-1.
*Tzimisce - Telepathic Tracking is 1-for-1.
Heck, the Gangrels have Dog Pack, but that's incredibly sketchy (it's
hard to find, you have to equip it, etc.).
Seems reasonable to me. Yes, S:CE is easy, and it probably *is* too
prevalent. However, as long as most combat decks have a reasonable
chance to deal with S:CE (as I believe they currently do), then things
don't need to be changed drastically.
> No, Potence IG combat isn't *that* devastating. But I think Assamite
> combat should be on par with it, and right now I don't think it is.
Why should it be? Why shouldn't, say...Tremere combat be equally
devestating? Assamite combat is incredibly powerful already...at long
range. Potence IG is incredibly powerful at close range. Why
shouldn't some other archetype than Assamite be the most powerful at
long range?
> > Most of these options (except Obedience and a really awful option with
> > Thoughts Betrayed) are only available to fight back. Not every deck should
> > be required to fight back.
>
> I agree with you here. But also, I don't think a deck should be able
> to add S:CE as a second-thought, to take care of the threat from 6/7
Well, they do have to include a specific discipline, usually. The
disciplines required have widened, with the proliferation of S:CE. I
think the problem is that disciplines that already have desirable
effects have most of the S:CE. Presence being the primary offender.
It's good for voting, it's good for bleed, it's good for combat
defense. (For values of good that equal S:CE.)
Not as many people have problems with Protean, Chimerstery,
Obtenebration, Visickerata (sp?), or Obeah S:CE. Quite possibly this
is because none of these disciplines are good for a primary tactic.
Some of them provide stealth, but none of them have an direct way of
causing pool damage. Perhaps this is your problem? Presence is too
good?
[number of maneuvers required for a close-range combat deck under the
proposed change]
> Yeah, it'd be rough. Maybe mixing in some permanent maneuvers or
> something. I don't know. Of course, IG combat may just be weak
> against FS combat. *shrug*
Of course, *all* combat that was unable to guarantee close range
(DotB, Shadow Step, Sniper Rifle, Cailean) would be weak against FS
combat. Not so good. If you have Assamites that are going to be
getting FS, there's no point in not loading up on either Blood Sweat
(to use against Fortitude) or Taste of Death (to use against vampires
that can't prevent).
> Well, Lasombra and Giovanni have Dominate, which allows for Thoughts
> Betrayed (which you mention below) and Obedience. I think the combat
> decks would have TB, and the non-combat decks would have Obedience.
Of course, Obedience is only useful if you're untapped (or Waking),
and not on your turn. Not that the Assamites tend to block a lot, but
with AUS FOR Assamites, we're seeing more of that. I don't think it's
a crime to want *combat* cards that give you a shot (barring Psyche!)
of having some defense.
> Also, the Lasombra combat probably *would* have Shadow Step in there.
Of course, this currently only works for older players who bought a
lot of Sabbat, or have traded their butts off. Not a great solution.
> Nosferatu have their 'combat is at short range' permanents, plus
> things like Patagia or IR Goggles. Not a great answer, but all I can
> think of. So maybe they're just weak against FS combat as well.
All these things that are maybe "just weak against FS combat" are
starting to add up...
> For non-combat decks though, again, I agree with you. They should be
> able to do something to foil FS (as it's proposed). Obedience is an
> answer for Dominate decks, but you're right, we need more.
We do have more. S:CE. :)
Yes, S:CE is quite rampant, but I think it's probably better to make
changes to the current cardset, rather than making sweeping rule
changes. S:CE is the combat defense that people use if there is low
or non-evolved combat in their metagame, but in a more evolved
metagame, people start to realize that it's just not going to save
them forever.
[can opposing vampires survive?]
> It only limits their ability to strike back if the vampire using
> Shadow Feint can incapacitate the target with it's First Strike.
I think it's an unreasonable assumption that the Assamite *won't* be
able to incapacitate the opposing vampire on its first strike. Sure,
they won't every time, but you could reasonably guarantee that you
would be able to.
Rush someone with less than 2 blood (not uncommon), or rush someone
without Fortitude. You could also set up some sort of combo where you
rush with a weenie with QUI, Thin Blood, let them S:CE, and then rush
with the heavy hitter.
> > Of course, you can prevent *all* of the Potence strike. That's the major
> > difference.
>
> True, but with no counterstrike whatsoever, other than a hand strike.
And making FS as powerful as you want to almost guarantees that the
opponent won't be able to strike back. Hand strikes can always have
Claws and such, as well, making it not always a winning situation for
the potence decks. Agg hand strikes screw the potence decks. Is
there an equivalent long-range deck that screws the Assamites?
> I guess in addition (hoho! more changes!) to the rule change
> proposed, I'd also want additional non-S:CE counters to FS that would,
> while leaving it powerful, allow each style to have an "out" if they
Heh. *OR*, we could just keep it as is. :)
> No, what I'm saying is that S:CE covers too many things, basically
> most combat. I think decks shouldn't be dealt with based on whether
> they're non-combat or combat. Instead, they should be based on the
> archetype - whether they're a vote deck, a bleed deck, an IG combat
> deck, a FS combat deck, a claws combat deck, an intercept/wall deck,
> etc.
Sorry, I was just simplifying down to combat/non-combat because it
makes the discussion a lot more clear in my eyes. Mostly because I've
been known to do funny things like play a vote/IG combat deck, or a
bleed/IG combat deck, or (surprisingly) a Tremere bleed deck that
hoses S:CE with Perfect Clarity.
> Just like the deck that ignores vote defense will likely get aced by a
> vote deck if one shows up, a deck that ignores FS combat should be
> hosed by one. Same against IG or claws or stealth bleed. But the way
So in other words, we should include a whole new set of cards that are
FS, and anti-FS. In order to change the rules to make FS better. I'm
not sure this is really a viable solution.
> it is now, you can take care of almost every combat archetype with
> just S:CE. It lumps almost all of them together and basically says
> "this 1 thing takes care of all those".
I don't agree. Yes, S:CE is the most powerful combat defense. It
doesn't however, take care of almost every combat strategy. Most
combat decks have a way around S:CE, it's just that most of them
aren't pre-emptive, like IG and Thoughts Betrayed. That's too bad. I
think what we currently have is pretty sufficient.
To look at it from another angle, what would happen with the !Gangrel,
if you gave them easy access to anti-S:CE (or First Strike...quite
possible with Shadow Feint)? Is there anything that would beat them?
Keep range close, Claw. Prevention would shut them down, but by
giving them First Strike, they have now shut down all decks that don't
include prevention. Did you intend to make the !Gangrel this much
more powerful?
> With that change though, I now think you may be right about Assamites
> being too powerful, although I don't think by much. Slightly too
Heh. *Now* we're getting somewhere. :)
Okay, I'll admit that I don't think that it would be the end of all
non-Assamite decks, but I do think that it would power them up to the
point where non-combat decks have to pack anti-FS cards, as well as
standard anti-combat cards. I don't think this is a good thing. If
you require everyone to include bleed bounce because RtI isn't fixed,
this is bad. If you require everyone to include anti-FS...well...this
also is not good.
[using too much S:CE will catch up with you]
> That's kind of a metagame thing though. If everyone decides to screw
Of course, the game is almost designed to balance itself through
continual shifting of the metagame.
> the S:CE decks, they will (same for any deck type). If 1 or 2, or
> even a handful of people decide to do something about S:CE, they may
> or may not succeed, depending on seating, etc. They may also screw
> *themselves* if they don't see S:CE.
Nah. I with some regularity (though not recently) play heavy combat.
People in my playgroup (about 10 to 15 players shuffle in and out)
stopped using massive S:CE quite a while ago, because they learned it
didn't work. More people are using Fortitude for combat defense. A
couple other guys also started playing heavy combat, and the others
*really* stopped using S:CE. If you decided to play a good combat
deck frequently, others will notice. Well, or they'll just complain
that IG is broken and whine about sitting next to you. However, if
you consistently win, or at least take a few VP, then there really
isn't that much for them to say.
> Well, yes and no. IG is wasted if you don't see S:CE. It won't
> necessarily clog your hand, as you can still use it, but it isn't
> really helping anything. Thought's Betrayed is worse, as you're not
Hardly. It'll prevent lots of other annoying things, like Coma,
Entombment, etc. :)
> likely to pay the 2 blood just to get it out of your hand, so you
Well, it works okay for the Tremere, but not so good for lots of other
decks. Though DOM/POT TB/punch/Taste of Vitae works okay.
> > If First Strike beats everything, again, what could a *non-combat* deck use
> > to beat the Assamites? Please, answer this.
>
> Gah, I can't! =)
Heh. Check.
> I don't really want FS combat to beat everything though. I want it to
> beat S:CE. Hell, make it beat S:CE but not Dodge. But again we go
Of course, with the best new FS card, Shadow Feint, you're beating
Dodge too.
> back to the Assamites, who don't care if you Dodge anyway and who
Right. :)
> already negate damage prevention, which is why I now think maybe a
> couple of cards would have to be added in addition to changing the FS
> rule.
Geh. Why not try to make *cards* that get around S:CE or something,
rather than going and changing the whole rule regarding how strikes
work? Something tells me you'll get a lot more player satisfaction if
this is how it proceeds.
> TB works because against FS you still get to strike back. So even if
> they stay at close (not cycling those maneuver cards) and try to Blur,
> you're out of combat after the first strike they throw, which was only
> 1 damage anyway because they couldn't throw down the whammy on you.
Of course, TB (2 blood) + hands for 1 + Blur(hands, hands) is a total
cost of 5 blood, which is rarely a winning proposition. :) And then
you have Parnassus and Parminedes...
> The 2 blood cost is restrictive though, since they can Psyche! for
> free and you'd have to pay another 2. Tremere would love it, but who
> wants to play them? =)
Hah! I'll admit the Tremere are tough to play well, but man, they've
got some good tricks...
[test it]
> Hehehe...
> 1st game, the answer is Anarch Revolt+Smiling Jack
> 2nd game, the answer is to make sure they get 2 each of Yusuf and
> Melek, then bleed them out quickly before they get on their feet.
>
> Ha ha, I know, I know! I'm doin' it.
Hehehe. Well, at least you found some people that will try it out
with you...
I really do think that having FS beat S:CE is a bad idea. Keep it up
though...report back on how it goes...
:)
Xian
Tobias
Heck yeah - don't have that ring and those stakes still lying around
from way back when just to gather dust - I wanna use them again!
Tobias
Deventer
Matt Green
news:64B924336B314E6C.AB3FA4FD...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:47:42 +0000 (UTC), Matt Green wrote:
>
> >Andrew S. and his crazy talk. Even he don't talk CL/NCL no more-
> >and he the craziest guy we got here.
>
> This FOCS stuff hasn't improved since the last time but I'll bite.
:) Thanks for your time, i was only half joking about the crazy fool
thing.
> Let's start by looking at the Watford tournament which you attended
> last weekend. This was won by Pierre Rebstock's deck which is built
> around huge quantities of Bloodform and Weather Control. One is rare
> and the other is uncommon, right? Q.E.D.
>
That's true. Couldn't play that deck under a card limit. You could play
mine under 4cl though, and Martins. Simons would maybe adapt and
Dave's....well Rewind Times don't actually win you the game, they just
stop you losing for a while. Likewise, couldn't play Adrian Deacon's
deck under 4cl (0vp on the day), Adam Payne's (0vp) of Jon Cooper's
(0vp). Jon and Adam at least have made final tables before and know what
they are doing.
So the tournament had a wide variation of decks, not just those with
dominate and auspex. Q.E.D. *shrug*
> But that was too easy. Let's have some more crazy talk.
>
> The published game is broken without additional patches to stop
> unlimited cycling. VEKN mostly uses NRA but, where there is a
> loophole in this as above, or as in the case of the Soul Gem decks,
> then you have decks which CL advocates would see as proof positive of
> their case.
To be sure here: their case being that degenerate decks with multiple
copies of single cards lead to uninteresting games? Whilst some would
argue that this is inovative deck design, i would largely agree. It's no
fun to be the first prey of the turbo-Arika decks. Those loop-holes
(i.e: the Soul Gem is too powerful in it's current wording) should be
closed.
And yes, the published game is broken without a cycling patch (and i
have to say i thought the untap restriction idea of yours deserves some
thought- although certainly some arrata to force of Will too), but then
it's an old game by CCG standards and if resdesigned and releasd today
around the same principles and mechanics it would probably look quite
different.
> The argument isn't CL vs NCL. It's CL vs NRA. A CL is
> cleaner, simpler, more practical and seems to work about as well.
>
Except that it will never happen as the playerbase would be devestated
by it and would likely leave the game. The playerbase is not big enough
to be split in 2 factions, so a CL would only be bad for the game at
this point. Now your point about bloodform being rare is valid as any
card that can be used in multiples that way should never be rare because
it produces a power-rare environment.
> For an example of a workable CL, see the recent report of the
> Battlecry tournament in NZ. This used a clever format which minimises
> down-time for players that have been ousted. It also used a CL of 5.
> The winner was another Andrew S. (no relation) who used two decks
> during the event. Neither of these was Malkavian Sneak+Bleed. One
> was a Tremere Bruise and Bleed deck containing many combat cards
> including just three Weather Control. And the other was a antitribu
> Ventrue deck based upon Dramatic Upheaval - a VP stealing archetype
> that I've not seen before. These seem just as interesting and
> imaginative as the NCL decks.
>
Both had DOM/AUS for bleed bounce- that's the mechanic you should be
looking at here, not the CL. Bleed bounce as a mechanic is wholely
difficult to deal with, even under NCL. Under 5CL it gets worse, not
better. I'm not sure that generating a less random player-mix as in this
tournament was such a good idea either. If you win quickly, don't you
just get to play the bad players who continously get ousted again and
again? eliminating downtime between rounds should be a matter of a
player playing a deck that something other than roll-over and die. Out
early? Your fault. Play better decks.
> Now I'm open-minded about this matter but the practical problem is
> that the NCL metagame seems to push you to either amass a huge
> collection (10,000+ cards seems typical) or to specialise in one or
> two clans/decks.
Agreed to some extent. although once you identify the cards worth having
you can minimise the money spent. most of teh cards you'd want would be
inexpensive anyway (other than the multi-use power rares, which are
admittedly a problem).
In a game with about 30 different clans, the latter
> is annoying because it means that most cards that you buy in boosters
> are no use to you. I've bought a few Bloodlines boosters but most of
> the cards are useless to me.
Temporis cards where the vampires that use them are rares. Yeah, i
didn't like that either. I think that problem was exabated by Bloodlines
though, FN was much better on that front.
Unless I can get cheap boxes, then
> buying large multiples of particular singles seems to be the way to
> go.
Yeah, that's what i do. Buy a box, then buy singles and trade once i've
sorted out which are the cards worth having.
NCL means that when you find a source of a particularly good
> single, you buy _all_ of them.
I think that's a good way to build winning tournament decks, yes. Not
everyone wants to do that though.
> I currently have 8 Weather Control and
> 0 Bloodform.
that's about what i own. [not sure how many bloodforms Rob and myself
have 2? Rob?]
This is nowhere near enough to make Pierre's deck but I
> don't want to trade them away as this would close the door to ever
> being able to make it. If there were a CL of 5, say, then I'd happily
> trade away some of the Weather Controls for something else. The
> market would have more liquidity and that's a good thing.
>
You think? I think the sales of those rares good in CL tournament play
would go through the roof and no one would touch the others. See M:TG.
About 70% of new rares never see tournament use by players likely to win
them. Most tournament magic players _only_ buy singles. Fortunately for
Hasbro, they represent a very small percentage of the player base.
> You see, the apparent freedom of NCL is illusory if you can't easily
> get the large numbers of cards required to make the decks which take
> advantage of it. David Hammond talks of True Brujah decks with 30
> copies of Rewind Time - another rare. That might be a feasible target
> for a Prince Suitcase like him now that he's cornered the market in
> this card but it's crazy talk AFAIC. Likewise, talk of what happens
> when you have multiple Siren's Lure or Blissful Agony is more
> daydreaming when they are both rare too - I don't have a single copy
> of either of them.
>
Talk of Princes aside, don't get me started, yes, mostly you are right.
I think that rares should, ideally be usable single cards, not stackable
ones like those you mention. I have 5 Siren's Lures though, opened two,
got one from rob, bought 2 for £3.50 each. I wish they were commons
though, they have a useful effect in multples.
[snip LotR]
I think any company that wants to launch a CCG these days has to get it
right, no excuses. They have had 9 years to look at Wizards of the
Coast. no reason to fail now if you know what you're doing. I hope Lotr
does well, it should do with that sort of strong licence. then again,
decipher did have the Star Wars licence, see how far that got them.
I think the points you put forward bely more problems with game
mechanics and card design than any CL issues. CL is a clunky messy fix
for for more inherrent problems;. Whilst i think soul gem should be
errata'd i don't want to play under CL, having done so in the past i had
less fun due to less diversity in the game. And that's what it's all
about, fun.
High strategy game: chess
Mirthful recreational pastime: V:TES
mattgreen
Play V:TES- it's better than working after all.
Peter D Bakija
>>The published game is broken without additional patches to stop
unlimited cycling. VEKN mostly uses NRA but, where there is a
loophole in this as above, or as in the case of the Soul Gem decks,
then you have decks which CL advocates would see as proof positive of
their case. The argument isn't CL vs NCL. It's CL vs NRA. A CL is
cleaner, simpler, more practical and seems to work about as well.>>
How does it work as well? It removes countless reasonable strategies from the
game, and makes other perfectly reasonable strategies under NL overpowered.
Under NRA there is one type of deck that is questionably falling through a
loophole--a Soul Gem deck--which is incredibly sketchy to begin with (too many
moving parts, easy to foil).
Thus, you are seeing totally hamstringing a game that works quite well under
the current rules set as "working about as well"? Check.
>>Now I'm open-minded about this matter>>
How are you in any way open-minded about this matter? You have consistiently
rallied against NCL, NRA, and, well, pretty much every aspect of this game.
That is like saying I'm open minded about playing with a card limit.
>>but the practical problem is that the NCL metagame seems to push you to
either amass a huge collection (10,000+ cards seems typical) or to specialise
in one or
two clans/decks. >>
???
I have been playing this game for years. I play casually. I play competetively.
I play a lot. I make new decks all the time. I currently have about 10 playable
decks constructed. I don't have anywhere near 10,000 cards. Not even close. Nor
are my decks specialized by type or clan. And I take them apart and make new
ones all the time.
Can I make decks that revolve around 30 of a particular rare? Nope. And ya know
what? I can survive. It just isn't an issue.
>>I've bought a few Bloodlines boosters but most of the cards are useless to
me.>>
Aren't all of your VTES cards useless to you? You don't like this game.
>>I currently have 8 Weather Control and 0 Bloodform. This is nowhere near
enough to make Pierre's deck but I don't want to trade them away as this would
close the door to ever being able to make it.>>
Dude, it is a tarding card game. You aren't going to be able to make every
possible deck ever, as there are simply too many permutations. I only have
about 8 Weather Control and 0 Bloodform as well. I can't make Pierre's deck
either. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
>>You see, the apparent freedom of NCL is illusory if you can't easily
get the large numbers of cards required to make the decks which take
advantage of it.>>
All decks take advanatge of the no card limit. And you don't need to be able to
make every deck in existance to be able to play competetively.
>>David Hammond talks of True Brujah decks with 30 copies of Rewind Time -
another rare.>>
And it is probably not a particularly useful deck. Why do you feel the burning
need to be able to make such a deck?
>>Likewise, talk of what happens when you have multiple Siren's Lure or
Blissful Agony is more daydreaming when they are both rare too - I don't have a
single copy
of either of them.>>
Me neither. Somehow I manage to find the strength to live day by day.
VTES is a game with no card limit. This means that you will often need a lot of
a single card to make particular deck. If this card is a rare, that puts you in
a tough situation. You can trade and buy singles till you get them, or you can
make a different deck. As there are countless winning, powerful strategies that
revolve around mostly commons, you have other options if you wish to play
competetively but don't have the 30 rares you need to make a particular deck
design. You don't need 30 of that rare. You can make another deck that is
probably just as effective with easier to get cards (I just bulk purchased
$15.00 worth of five cent commons, 'cause I needed a bunch of common cards. I
now have more Computer Hackings, Blood Dolls, Bondings and Flashes than I know
what to do with).
Is this a problem if you feel the need to build a deck with those 30 Rares?
Sure, but you never have to actually build that deck.
VTES is a game that trades the ability to build every deck you could possibly
immagine ('cause you don't have those 30 rares) for not needing to ('cause you
do have those 30 commons).
Strikes me as a perfectly solid trade.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"These streets are filled with danger and madness! MADNESS!"
-Zim.
Patrick Harris
> >Patrick Harris <pha...@sfopera.com> wrote:
> >No, Potence IG combat isn't *that* devastating. But I think Assamite
> >combat should be on par with it, and right now I don't think it is.
>
> Potence IG is foiled by prevent and maneuvers.
>
> Assamite combat should usually be doing fine for maneuvers. Defensive
> decks won't have many (though possibly some); offensive decks, well,
> it's a similar situation to the Potence IG deck.
>
> The Potence deck is foiled by prevent. The Assamite deck is foiled by
> S:CE, because it can do shed-loads of unpreventable damage.
But do you think Assamite combat is on par with Potence combat? I
don't. And I think it's mostly due to S:CE being used so much.
That's just my feeling, and it could be other things.
You can compare and contrast the two styles, but you just don't see as
many Assamite combat decks to show that they're on par. I don't think
that has anything to do with the strength/weakness of Potence or
Assamites, but rather the frequency of S:CE. If it's use were just a
little less widespread, we'd see more types of combat decks.
Don't get me wrong though, I don't want combat decks to be dominant in
the tourney scene. I'd just like to see more variety in the types of
combat decks that are consistently effective. And right now I think
Potence IG combat is the only consistent combat deck because it can
deal with S:CE. I'd like to see something to weaken S:CE, but then
I'd also want new (non-S:CE) alternatives for dealing with combat
decks.
> If it could also easily prevent S:CE, it would not be on a par with
> Potence IG.
Agreed. I think the First Strike proposal (FS beats S:CE) would
empower the Assamites a little too much, so would need a
counterbalance or two added with the rule change. (Geh, I'm just
asking for more and more.)
p.
Rob Treasure
> > I currently have 8 Weather Control and
> > 0 Bloodform.
> that's about what i own. [not sure how many bloodforms Rob and myself
> have 2? Rob?]
*looks* Hmmmm, add another 10 Weather controls and 4 Bloodforms Green.......
la de da, nothing to see hear but us trees.
Rob
Flux
news:dbc1153.02013...@posting.google.com:
> Of course, all of those except Animalism and Gangrel claw have a
> 1-for-1 method of beating S:CE, or better.
> *Tremere - Thoughts Betrayed kills S:CE, Telepathic Tracking is
> 1-for-1.
> *Assamite - Psyche is 1-for-1.
> *Tzimisce - Telepathic Tracking is 1-for-1.
Problem is that the 1-for-1 doesn't really add up to that: you have to add
other combat cards played. For the Assamites, that usually means at least
a maneuver, Tzimisce would want to play Carrion Crows and/or Horrid Form,
though at least TT allows them to keep those effects going.
A clever S:CE player can take advantage of that. No amount of cleverness
will save them from IG or TB though.
> Heck, the Gangrels have Dog Pack, but that's incredibly sketchy (it's
> hard to find, you have to equip it, etc.).
Another option that could be worth a shot would be Freaky Rush. I don't
have enough FD to try it, but I'd think it would be almost as effective as
Psyche!, and easier to pull off than Dog Pack.
Flux
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
>Another option that could be worth a shot would be Freaky Rush. I don't
>have enough FD to try it,
Eh? How is that an option?
T
Flux
I mentioned it in a post a couple of weeks ago, I thought someone would
have thought of it before:
- Bum's Rush
- S:CE
- You play Freak Drive, then rush again with a different card (Ambush,
Haven Uncovered, Wynn's ability...)
Not as effective as Psyche!, but it will help running them out of S:CE.
And if they don't S:CE you can just play your pokey card, then FD to
diablerize or rush another minion.
:-)
Flux
hamdamcwa
> get the large numbers of cards required to make the decks which take
> advantage of it. David Hammond talks of True Brujah decks with 30
> copies of Rewind Time - another rare. That might be a feasible target
> for a Prince Suitcase like him now that he's cornered the market in
> this card but it's crazy talk AFAIC.
I mention it as a theoretical deck that someone, in the future, will
probably try and make. I have 6 - 5 that I bought as singles, 1 I
traded for. Considering VTES is a major hobby / passtime of mine, it
is not unreasonable to have that many. I am not looking particularly
for any more.
The actual deck I played last weekend could easily be reworked for 5
CL, and using different cards be reworked for 4 CL (only the Majesties
- 7 - and the Rewind Times - 6 - go above either, and they could be
replaced with other cards, such as Catatonic Fear and Direct
Interventions). In fact, I was aiming for a split of 4 Majesties and 4
CFs, but I have less CFs than I thought (not quite the Mr Suitcase,
eh!).
DH
Patrick Harris
> pha...@sfopera.com (Patrick Harris) wrote...
> > > "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote ...
> > > Gangrel claw - S:CE, prevent, dodge (usually)
> > > Potence IG - maneuvers, prevent
> > > Tremere Theft/Walk - S:CE, dodge, prevent (against the Walk)...Thoughts
> > > Betrayed, etc. make this harder to deal with, but in the end, you can > > > almost always prevent the Walk
> > > Assamite (currently) - S:CE
> > > Tzimisce - S:CE, prevent, dodge
> > > Animalism - S:CE
> > >
> > > That's pretty much all of the *good* combat archetypes. Coma/Entombment
> > > suck to be in combat with, but still lose to S:CE and dodge.
> >
> > True, true. But look at your list there. Out of the 7 (including
> > Coma/Entombment for now) archetypes you list, 6 are foiled by S:CE. 6
> > of 7! There are other options, of course, but I think S:CE is far and
> > away the easiest.
>
> Of course, all of those except Animalism and Gangrel claw have a
> 1-for-1 method of beating S:CE, or better.
> *Tremere - Thoughts Betrayed kills S:CE, Telepathic Tracking is
> 1-for-1.
> *Assamite - Psyche is 1-for-1.
> *Tzimisce - Telepathic Tracking is 1-for-1.
Yeah, but they have to decide whether they want to include it. They
have to decide whether they want to try to get around Dodge.
Maneuvers. Prevent. That's a lot of cards to add in if you want to
deal with all those things. The opposing deck decided to put in S:CE
to deal with almost all the combat decks. Just one addition.
> Heck, the Gangrels have Dog Pack, but that's incredibly sketchy (it's
> hard to find, you have to equip it, etc.).
>
> Seems reasonable to me. Yes, S:CE is easy, and it probably *is* too
> prevalent. However, as long as most combat decks have a reasonable
> chance to deal with S:CE (as I believe they currently do), then things
> don't need to be changed drastically.
I don't think the change has to be drastic. Of course, that point of
view depends on how drastic one thinks the FS rule change would be.
With a couple of cards to balance it, I don't think it's *that* much
of a change. A small one, but in the right direction, IMO.
> > No, Potence IG combat isn't *that* devastating. But I think Assamite
> > combat should be on par with it, and right now I don't think it is.
>
> Why should it be? Why shouldn't, say...Tremere combat be equally
> devestating? Assamite combat is incredibly powerful already...at long
> range. Potence IG is incredibly powerful at close range. Why
> shouldn't some other archetype than Assamite be the most powerful at
> long range?
Any other combat (or non-combat I guess) style being able to reduce
the frequency of S:CE is good, I think. It doesn't have to be
Assamites, or even the FS rule. Changing the FS rule just seems to be
a good way to do so, and that change really affects the Assamites,
which is how they came up. Another answer to your question, what else
do Assamites really do? I mean the majority of their cards are
designed to beat other minions up. It's really hard for them to bleed
or vote. So if they're going to be geared towards combat, they should
be good at it. Not marginal.
> > > Most of these options (except Obedience and a really awful option with
> > > Thoughts Betrayed) are only available to fight back. Not every deck > > > should be required to fight back.
> >
> > I agree with you here. But also, I don't think a deck should be able
> > to add S:CE as a second-thought, to take care of the threat from 6/7
>
> Well, they do have to include a specific discipline, usually. The
> disciplines required have widened, with the proliferation of S:CE. I
> think the problem is that disciplines that already have desirable
> effects have most of the S:CE. Presence being the primary offender.
> It's good for voting, it's good for bleed, it's good for combat
> defense. (For values of good that equal S:CE.)
Very true.
> Not as many people have problems with Protean, Chimerstery,
> Obtenebration, Visickerata (sp?), or Obeah S:CE. Quite possibly this
> is because none of these disciplines are good for a primary tactic.
> Some of them provide stealth, but none of them have an direct way of
> causing pool damage. Perhaps this is your problem? Presence is too
> good?
Could be. Looking at those disciplines and the clans that go with
them:
Protean - if they're using S:CE, then they're not using aggravated
damage, their forte
Chimerstry - haven't seen *too* many of these, so I can't say
Obtenebration - S:CE means no Potence or Entombment
Vis (yeah, that Gargoyle thing) - S:CE means none of that other
Gargoyle combat nasty
Vicissitude: S:CE means no Tzimisce nasty
Obeah: dunno yet
So not only are these disciplines not on the power level of Presence,
but adding S:CE to these decks seems to counter what, arguably, these
disciplines are best at.
Adding S:CE to a Presence deck in no way counters the other things
that Presence can do for a deck.
> [number of maneuvers required for a close-range combat deck under the
> proposed change]
> > Yeah, it'd be rough. Maybe mixing in some permanent maneuvers or
> > something. I don't know. Of course, IG combat may just be weak
> > against FS combat. *shrug*
>
> Of course, *all* combat that was unable to guarantee close range
> (DotB, Shadow Step, Sniper Rifle, Cailean) would be weak against FS
> combat. Not so good. If you have Assamites that are going to be
> getting FS, there's no point in not loading up on either Blood Sweat
> (to use against Fortitude) or Taste of Death (to use against vampires
> that can't prevent).
I can see that, yeah. That's why I agree now that something else
would have to be added to counter the strength the Assamites would
gain.
> > Well, Lasombra and Giovanni have Dominate, which allows for Thoughts
> > Betrayed (which you mention below) and Obedience. I think the combat
> > decks would have TB, and the non-combat decks would have Obedience.
>
> Of course, Obedience is only useful if you're untapped (or Waking),
> and not on your turn. Not that the Assamites tend to block a lot, but
> with AUS FOR Assamites, we're seeing more of that. I don't think it's
> a crime to want *combat* cards that give you a shot (barring Psyche!)
> of having some defense.
Yep. But, you alter your decks as the metagame morphs. You see more
Assamites, you put in more Obedience/untap. You see more IG, you pack
prevent or maneuvers. You know.
Although I'm gonna say that if you're using Assamites to intercept,
you're diluting their combat effectiveness.
> > Also, the Lasombra combat probably *would* have Shadow Step in there.
>
> Of course, this currently only works for older players who bought a
> lot of Sabbat, or have traded their butts off. Not a great solution.
Crap, was that not reprinted? Good point.
> > Nosferatu have their 'combat is at short range' permanents, plus
> > things like Patagia or IR Goggles. Not a great answer, but all I can
> > think of. So maybe they're just weak against FS combat as well.
>
> All these things that are maybe "just weak against FS combat" are
> starting to add up...
Well, it's other combat decks against Assamite combat. That's
*current* archetypes though. Maybe others would evolve. I can see
the Ravnos doing nasty things to an Assamite combat deck.
> > For non-combat decks though, again, I agree with you. They should be
> > able to do something to foil FS (as it's proposed). Obedience is an
> > answer for Dominate decks, but you're right, we need more.
>
> We do have more. S:CE. :)
Curse you, no! Hehehe
> Yes, S:CE is quite rampant, but I think it's probably better to make
> changes to the current cardset, rather than making sweeping rule
> changes.
I'm not sure what you mean here. You mean to add cards that make it
less enticing to use S:CE, but not touch the rules at all? That'd
probably work, and I could probably go along with that. It just
seemed like the FS rule change would be an easier way, *plus* it would
help the Assamites who are IMO weak.
> S:CE is the combat defense that people use if there is low
> or non-evolved combat in their metagame, but in a more evolved
> metagame, people start to realize that it's just not going to save
> them forever.
>
> [can opposing vampires survive?]
> > It only limits their ability to strike back if the vampire using
> > Shadow Feint can incapacitate the target with it's First Strike.
>
> I think it's an unreasonable assumption that the Assamite *won't* be
> able to incapacitate the opposing vampire on its first strike. Sure,
> they won't every time, but you could reasonably guarantee that you
> would be able to.
>
> Rush someone with less than 2 blood (not uncommon), or rush someone
> without Fortitude. You could also set up some sort of combo where you
> rush with a weenie with QUI, Thin Blood, let them S:CE, and then rush
> with the heavy hitter.
Well, depends on what you're up against. If the average vampire is 3
or less, yeah. 4 caps too. I'm seeing more and more mid-caps though.
5-7 range. I don't think 3 unpreventable is going to do it against
those.
> > > Of course, you can prevent *all* of the Potence strike. That's the major
> > > difference.
> >
> > True, but with no counterstrike whatsoever, other than a hand strike.
>
> And making FS as powerful as you want to almost guarantees that the
> opponent won't be able to strike back. Hand strikes can always have
> Claws and such, as well, making it not always a winning situation for
> the potence decks. Agg hand strikes screw the potence decks. Is
> there an equivalent long-range deck that screws the Assamites?
Not that I can think of off the top of my head, no. Tremere with
Fortitude and/or Celerity? Something would have to tone the Assamites
down.
> > I guess in addition (hoho! more changes!) to the rule change
> > proposed, I'd also want additional non-S:CE counters to FS that would,
> > while leaving it powerful, allow each style to have an "out" if they
>
> Heh. *OR*, we could just keep it as is. :)
That's crazy talk.
> > No, what I'm saying is that S:CE covers too many things, basically
> > most combat. I think decks shouldn't be dealt with based on whether
> > they're non-combat or combat. Instead, they should be based on the
> > archetype - whether they're a vote deck, a bleed deck, an IG combat
> > deck, a FS combat deck, a claws combat deck, an intercept/wall deck,
> > etc.
>
> Sorry, I was just simplifying down to combat/non-combat because it
> makes the discussion a lot more clear in my eyes.
Well, that's how a lot of non-combat decks see things too.
"Combat? S:CE. If I see IG, I'm screwed. I'll take that chance; I
don't want to water down my deck."
> Mostly because I've
> been known to do funny things like play a vote/IG combat deck, or a
> bleed/IG combat deck, or (surprisingly) a Tremere bleed deck that
> hoses S:CE with Perfect Clarity.
Hey, you're only human. =)
I'm the guy trying to make the intercept deck that can actually oust
it's prey regularly. Last attempt was a weird Tzimsce/Smiling
Jack/Pulse/Thaumaturgy thing.
> > Just like the deck that ignores vote defense will likely get aced by a
> > vote deck if one shows up, a deck that ignores FS combat should be
> > hosed by one. Same against IG or claws or stealth bleed. But the way
>
> So in other words, we should include a whole new set of cards that are
> FS, and anti-FS. In order to change the rules to make FS better. I'm
> not sure this is really a viable solution.
Ack, no. We're talking about "we", if we're the rules team and
designers? I think changing the FS rule is one. Then I can see 1-3
cards added to the next set that counter it. Not a whole new set of
cards or anything. And actually, I'm not sure that FS would need to
be countered, but Assamite combat in particular. Though if indeed it
isn't just Assamites, then you could gear the counter towards
Celerity, which provides the FS. Perhaps something along the lines of
Blessing of Chaos. Just 1 card like that, provided that the
requirements are such that many vampires have access to it, could
balance FS.
If the FS rule is left as is, in order to prune S:CE back a bit,
*then* you'd need to add a lot of cards.
If you're talking about "we", the deckbuilders, then I'm not sure
exactly what you're saying. If I do, then the answer is still no.
You decide what your deck does, and what you want to counter, if
anything. But when you decide to counter, you can't just think of
combat and settle upon S:CE because it counter most combat.
> > it is now, you can take care of almost every combat archetype with
> > just S:CE. It lumps almost all of them together and basically says
> > "this 1 thing takes care of all those".
>
> I don't agree. Yes, S:CE is the most powerful combat defense. It
> doesn't however, take care of almost every combat strategy. Most
> combat decks have a way around S:CE, it's just that most of them
> aren't pre-emptive, like IG and Thoughts Betrayed. That's too bad. I
> think what we currently have is pretty sufficient.
I dunno. Maybe it's that S:CE is too vanilla. I mean who can't use
it? Add onto that the Assamites aren't effective, due to S:CE (IMO).
I mean it's hard enough for a Potence IG deck to win a table, and they
can easily deal with S:CE.
Changing the FS rule addresses both of those issues. Yeah, it brings
up another, but I think that's taken care of with the addition of a
couple of cards.
> To look at it from another angle, what would happen with the !Gangrel,
> if you gave them easy access to anti-S:CE (or First Strike...quite
> possible with Shadow Feint)? Is there anything that would beat them?
> Keep range close, Claw. Prevention would shut them down, but by
> giving them First Strike, they have now shut down all decks that don't
> include prevention. Did you intend to make the !Gangrel this much
> more powerful?
Well, according to that logic, the only things that can beat them now
would be S:CE/Dodge and prevention. There are too many other
non-combat factors to consider them all-around powerful. In combat,
yeah, and probably a bit too much, just like we've discussed with
Assamites. I think (damnit, you're making my head hurt now) !Gangrel
would fall in with the Assamites, and the cards added to balance FS
would have to... well, balance FS. Actually, the card I described
above would take care of both clans.
> > With that change though, I now think you may be right about Assamites
> > being too powerful, although I don't think by much. Slightly too
>
> Heh. *Now* we're getting somewhere. :)
>
> Okay, I'll admit that I don't think that it would be the end of all
> non-Assamite decks, but I do think that it would power them up to the
> point where non-combat decks have to pack anti-FS cards, as well as
> standard anti-combat cards. I don't think this is a good thing.
Why not? Players have to decide to pack anti-vote if they want to
counter that. Anti-bleed if they want to counter that.
Anti-intercept. Anti-stealth. Anti-retainers. Anti-equipment.
Anti-master cards.
> If
> you require everyone to include bleed bounce because RtI isn't fixed,
> this is bad. If you require everyone to include anti-FS...well...this
> also is not good.
Ah, now this is a good point, and you're a bastard for coming up with
it. Okay, lemme think (ow).
Alright, RtI isn't a good comparison because *any* vampire could use
it, and that single action could oust someone. That was insanely
overpowered. This applies only to Celerity, and combat decks, really,
so I think it's just a hair overpowered. I mean sure, they can wipe
out minions all day, but they still need to be able to take out a
Methuselah with other cards/actions.
Adding a card or two couldn't balance RtI. I think that can balance
FS.
Damnit, Xian.
Although I still want FS to beat out S:CE (not necessarily Dodge),
what about this?: Instead of changing the FS rule and adding a couple
of cards to balance it (Celerity specifically), why not add a couple
of cards give Celerity the ability to beat FS and/or Dodge? Hmm...
perhaps an Assamite-only permanent, a Path of [whatever the non-blood
one is in the WW fiction].
> [using too much S:CE will catch up with you]
> > That's kind of a metagame thing though. If everyone decides to screw
>
> Of course, the game is almost designed to balance itself through
> continual shifting of the metagame.
>
> > the S:CE decks, they will (same for any deck type). If 1 or 2, or
> > even a handful of people decide to do something about S:CE, they may
> > or may not succeed, depending on seating, etc. They may also screw
> > *themselves* if they don't see S:CE.
>
> Nah. I with some regularity (though not recently) play heavy combat.
> People in my playgroup (about 10 to 15 players shuffle in and out)
> stopped using massive S:CE quite a while ago, because they learned it
> didn't work. More people are using Fortitude for combat defense. A
> couple other guys also started playing heavy combat, and the others
> *really* stopped using S:CE. If you decided to play a good combat
> deck frequently, others will notice.
I'm talking more about a tourney situation. You and a few friends
bring your combat decks, but in a room of 20-25, you're going to see a
lot of S:CE. I know a lot of people who play a variety of decks in
their local groups, but then when they go to tournaments they dig out
the Presence bleeders. So if you get to the tourney and you have 3 in
20 decks being combat, your chances aren't good to not see much S:CE.
Now the IG deck may not care, but the rest of those combat decks do.
*snip whiners*
> > Well, yes and no. IG is wasted if you don't see S:CE. It won't
> > necessarily clog your hand, as you can still use it, but it isn't
> > really helping anything. Thought's Betrayed is worse, as you're not
>
> Hardly. It'll prevent lots of other annoying things, like Coma,
> Entombment, etc. :)
Smarty pants. Yeah okay, S:CE, Coma and Entombment.
> > likely to pay the 2 blood just to get it out of your hand, so you
>
> Well, it works okay for the Tremere, but not so good for lots of other
> decks. Though DOM/POT TB/punch/Taste of Vitae works okay.
If the opponent has a lot of blood.
> > > If First Strike beats everything, again, what could a *non-combat* deck > > > use to beat the Assamites? Please, answer this.
> >
> > Gah, I can't! =)
>
> Heh. Check.
S:CE!
> > I don't really want FS combat to beat everything though. I want it to
> > beat S:CE. Hell, make it beat S:CE but not Dodge. But again we go
>
> Of course, with the best new FS card, Shadow Feint, you're beating
> Dodge too.
Not that the Assamites care about dodge anyway, but I think I got this
with the Celerity-counter card I mentioned.
> > back to the Assamites, who don't care if you Dodge anyway and who
>
> Right. :)
>
> > already negate damage prevention, which is why I now think maybe a
> > couple of cards would have to be added in addition to changing the FS
> > rule.
>
> Geh. Why not try to make *cards* that get around S:CE or something,
> rather than going and changing the whole rule regarding how strikes
> work? Something tells me you'll get a lot more player satisfaction if
> this is how it proceeds.
Hahah! Hadn't gotten down this far yet. See the Path card mentioned
above, pal. =)
> > TB works because against FS you still get to strike back. So even if
> > they stay at close (not cycling those maneuver cards) and try to Blur,
> > you're out of combat after the first strike they throw, which was only
> > 1 damage anyway because they couldn't throw down the whammy on you.
>
> Of course, TB (2 blood) + hands for 1 + Blur(hands, hands) is a total
> cost of 5 blood, which is rarely a winning proposition. :) And then
> you have Parnassus and Parminedes...
Wait, what? I'm saying to use TB against FS. So even if the FS'er
Blurs on you, it doesn't matter. You've limited him to handstrikes,
so he'll hit you for 1 and you can still S:CE after his first strike.
> > The 2 blood cost is restrictive though, since they can Psyche! for
> > free and you'd have to pay another 2. Tremere would love it, but who
> > wants to play them? =)
>
> Hah! I'll admit the Tremere are tough to play well, but man, they've
> got some good tricks...
No, I agree with you here. I like playing them. Been trying to work
on Thaumaturgy for the Tzimisce for a long time now.
> [test it]
> > Hehehe...
> > 1st game, the answer is Anarch Revolt+Smiling Jack
> > 2nd game, the answer is to make sure they get 2 each of Yusuf and
> > Melek, then bleed them out quickly before they get on their feet.
> >
> > Ha ha, I know, I know! I'm doin' it.
>
> Hehehe. Well, at least you found some people that will try it out
> with you...
Yeah, we hadn't played in a while, and we all originally played with
FS beating Dodge and S:CE anyway, so it was easy to get them to go for
it. Don't know when the next game will be.
p.
Xian
> xb...@qwest.net (Xian) wrote...
> > Of course, all of those except Animalism and Gangrel claw have a
> > 1-for-1 method of beating S:CE, or better.
> > *Tremere - Thoughts Betrayed kills S:CE, Telepathic Tracking is
> > 1-for-1.
> > *Assamite - Psyche is 1-for-1.
> > *Tzimisce - Telepathic Tracking is 1-for-1.
>
> Yeah, but they have to decide whether they want to include it. They
> have to decide whether they want to try to get around Dodge.
> Maneuvers. Prevent. That's a lot of cards to add in if you want to
> deal with all those things. The opposing deck decided to put in S:CE
> to deal with almost all the combat decks. Just one addition.
Thoughts Betrayed and Telepathic Tracking are no-brainers. TB beats Dodge
inherently, and the Tremere generally don't care about maneuvers or prevent
most of the time. Telepathic Tracking offers a great effect even when it
doesn't beat S:CE, so it's pretty much good to go.
Psyche is the only card of the ones I mentioned that doesn't have a *really
good* effect aside from stopping S:CE, but a press can often be useful in
and of itself.
> I don't think the change has to be drastic. Of course, that point of
> view depends on how drastic one thinks the FS rule change would be.
Yeah. I think overturning a rule that has been in place for 8 years is
drastic. :)
> With a couple of cards to balance it, I don't think it's *that* much
> of a change. A small one, but in the right direction, IMO.
Of course, we could just introduce a few cards that do something interesting
and *not* change the mechanic, but I think that's getting ahead of
ourselves. I don't think the Assamites (in general, and FS in particular)
need to beat S:CE.
> Any other combat (or non-combat I guess) style being able to reduce
> the frequency of S:CE is good, I think. It doesn't have to be
> Assamites, or even the FS rule. Changing the FS rule just seems to be
> a good way to do so, and that change really affects the Assamites,
Eh. S:CE can stay as it is for all I care. If I'm building a combat deck,
I'll include ways to deal with S:CE. If I'm not building a combat deck, I
shouldn't care about S:CE.
> which is how they came up. Another answer to your question, what else
> do Assamites really do? I mean the majority of their cards are
> designed to beat other minions up. It's really hard for them to bleed
> or vote. So if they're going to be geared towards combat, they should
> be good at it. Not marginal.
Heartblood of the Clan machine? :) I think that they are good at combat,
just not against the ultimate combat trump. They're good against everyone
else. Assassins for hard targets.
[is presence, and not S:CE the actual problem?]
> Could be. Looking at those disciplines and the clans that go with
> them:
> Protean - if they're using S:CE, then they're not using aggravated
> damage, their forte
> Chimerstry - haven't seen *too* many of these, so I can't say
> Obtenebration - S:CE means no Potence or Entombment
> Vis (yeah, that Gargoyle thing) - S:CE means none of that other
> Gargoyle combat nasty
> Vicissitude: S:CE means no Tzimisce nasty
> Obeah: dunno yet
Yup.
> Adding S:CE to a Presence deck in no way counters the other things
> that Presence can do for a deck.
Exactly. Which is why I mentioned it.
> Although I'm gonna say that if you're using Assamites to intercept,
> you're diluting their combat effectiveness.
I dunno. They've got that AUS QUI card now...that could make Assamite
intercept really really deadly. I've traded most of mine away, though.
Wanted to play with it, but I got an offer I couldn't refuse.
[Shadow Step]
> Crap, was that not reprinted? Good point.
Yeah, I was disappointed it wasn't reprinted. Hopefully, it'll be reprinted
at some point. Shouldn't have been rare, IMO...it's kind of one of their
signature powers, but I suppose it isn't exactly along the main strength of
the discipline.
> > Yes, S:CE is quite rampant, but I think it's probably better to make
> > changes to the current cardset, rather than making sweeping rule
> > changes.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. You mean to add cards that make it
> less enticing to use S:CE, but not touch the rules at all? That'd
Yes. This is what I meant.
> probably work, and I could probably go along with that. It just
> seemed like the FS rule change would be an easier way, *plus* it would
> help the Assamites who are IMO weak.
It'd be "easier" in that it would be adding fewer words/cards to the current
set. On the other hand, it could have a dramatically unforseen effect on
the game, which is the primary reason I don't want it to happen, and by
"dramatically unforseen," I mean something that is worse than all of the
counter-arguments I am offering. FS beats S:CE and then some combo that we
haven't thought up yet is the be-all-end-all of the game. Not good.
> > I think it's an unreasonable assumption that the Assamite *won't* be
> > able to incapacitate the opposing vampire on its first strike. Sure,
> > they won't every time, but you could reasonably guarantee that you
> > would be able to.
> >
> > Rush someone with less than 2 blood (not uncommon), or rush someone
> > without Fortitude. You could also set up some sort of combo where you
> > rush with a weenie with QUI, Thin Blood, let them S:CE, and then rush
> > with the heavy hitter.
>
> Well, depends on what you're up against. If the average vampire is 3
> or less, yeah. 4 caps too. I'm seeing more and more mid-caps though.
> 5-7 range. I don't think 3 unpreventable is going to do it against
> those.
Wait until they're down a little on blood, then hammer them. Alternatively:
Rush, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, S:CE, Assamite
plays Psyche, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, rinse,
wash, repeat. High card cost, but nigh unstoppable. I could build a deck
around it. Wouldn't work every single time, but it's doable.
> > Is
> > there an equivalent long-range deck that screws the Assamites?
>
> Not that I can think of off the top of my head, no. Tremere with
> Fortitude and/or Celerity? Something would have to tone the Assamites
> down.
Heh. Not likely. :)
> I'm the guy trying to make the intercept deck that can actually oust
> it's prey regularly. Last attempt was a weird Tzimsce/Smiling
> Jack/Pulse/Thaumaturgy thing.
Hah! And they call *me* crazy! Oh, wait, no...I've seen that sort of deck
win a tournament. Maybe you're not crazy. :)
> > So in other words, we should include a whole new set of cards that are
> > FS, and anti-FS. In order to change the rules to make FS better. I'm
> > not sure this is really a viable solution.
>
> Ack, no. We're talking about "we", if we're the rules team and
> designers? I think changing the FS rule is one. Then I can see 1-3
Yes, that "we". The one of which I am not actually a subset, but refer to
as "we" kind of like a sports team is "we".
> cards added to the next set that counter it. Not a whole new set of
> cards or anything. And actually, I'm not sure that FS would need to
> be countered, but Assamite combat in particular. Though if indeed it
Clan hosers, huh? :) Not so sure about that.
> If the FS rule is left as is, in order to prune S:CE back a bit,
> *then* you'd need to add a lot of cards.
Not necessarily. Maybe just a couple to make long-range combat more viable.
> > I don't agree. Yes, S:CE is the most powerful combat defense. It
> > doesn't however, take care of almost every combat strategy. Most
> > combat decks have a way around S:CE, it's just that most of them
> > aren't pre-emptive, like IG and Thoughts Betrayed. That's too bad. I
> > think what we currently have is pretty sufficient.
>
> I dunno. Maybe it's that S:CE is too vanilla. I mean who can't use
> it? Add onto that the Assamites aren't effective, due to S:CE (IMO).
Maybe, as Derek Ray suggests, the Assamites aren't *meant* to ever win with
a pure rush deck. They're *assassins* after all, not simple thugs who beat
up everything in their way.
> I mean it's hard enough for a Potence IG deck to win a table, and they
> can easily deal with S:CE.
True. Potence IG also has access to a lot smaller minions, which helps.
The Assamites have to rely on larger minions, which slows things down in
terms of getting vampires out and number of actions availabe. Making them
somewhat unsuited for pure rush.
> > To look at it from another angle, what would happen with the !Gangrel,
> > if you gave them easy access to anti-S:CE (or First Strike...quite
> > possible with Shadow Feint)? Is there anything that would beat them?
> > Keep range close, Claw. Prevention would shut them down, but by
> > giving them First Strike, they have now shut down all decks that don't
> > include prevention. Did you intend to make the !Gangrel this much
> > more powerful?
>
> Well, according to that logic, the only things that can beat them now
> would be S:CE/Dodge and prevention. There are too many other
Which is pretty much the case, isn't it? And Dodge doesn't really beat
them.
> non-combat factors to consider them all-around powerful. In combat,
> yeah, and probably a bit too much, just like we've discussed with
> Assamites. I think (damnit, you're making my head hurt now) !Gangrel
> would fall in with the Assamites, and the cards added to balance FS
> would have to... well, balance FS. Actually, the card I described
> above would take care of both clans.
Again, or we could just introduce a few new cards to make S:CE less of an
easy option. Something like Skin Trap for CEL or something.
> > Okay, I'll admit that I don't think that it would be the end of all
> > non-Assamite decks, but I do think that it would power them up to the
> > point where non-combat decks have to pack anti-FS cards, as well as
> > standard anti-combat cards. I don't think this is a good thing.
>
> Why not? Players have to decide to pack anti-vote if they want to
> counter that. Anti-bleed if they want to counter that.
> Anti-intercept. Anti-stealth. Anti-retainers. Anti-equipment.
> Anti-master cards.
Players have to include a strategy for dealing with bleed, yes. They don't
have to include cards that specifically deal with bleed. Potence rush works
fine. :) Bleeding is a basic mechanic of the game. There should be
thought put into dealing with it.
Players have to decide if they want to include stealth or intercept, but
they don't have to play the stealth/intercept game if they don't want to.
Again, Potence rush is a good example. Stealth and intercept are basic
mechanics of the game, so they must be taken into account.
Anti-retainers? Are you crazy? :)
Anti-master card stuff is available, but lots of decks don't bother
including it. Only if the player wants to. Anti-FS might fall in here.
People can pack anti-FS if they want to, but they shouldn't feel that they
*must* include it. Neither of these is a basic (as in building-block...they
do exist in the base ruleset, certainly) mechanic of the game, so they
shouldn't need to be planned for in *every* single deck, IMO.
> > If
> > you require everyone to include bleed bounce because RtI isn't fixed,
> > this is bad. If you require everyone to include anti-FS...well...this
> > also is not good.
>
> Ah, now this is a good point, and you're a bastard for coming up with
> it. Okay, lemme think (ow).
> Alright, RtI isn't a good comparison because *any* vampire could use
No, it's not a good comparison, I was just using it as the most extreme
example. Hyperbole, if you will.
> it, and that single action could oust someone. That was insanely
> overpowered. This applies only to Celerity, and combat decks, really,
> so I think it's just a hair overpowered. I mean sure, they can wipe
> out minions all day, but they still need to be able to take out a
> Methuselah with other cards/actions.
Of course, if they can efficiently wipe out minions, there's not a lot
stopping them from winning. Trust me, I play lots of rush, I know how it
works...
> Adding a card or two couldn't balance RtI. I think that can balance
> FS.
Again, why not *add cards* that make FS more viable, instead of directly
monkeying with the rules?
> Damnit, Xian.
:)
> Although I still want FS to beat out S:CE (not necessarily Dodge),
> what about this?: Instead of changing the FS rule and adding a couple
> of cards to balance it (Celerity specifically), why not add a couple
> of cards give Celerity the ability to beat FS and/or Dodge? Hmm...
> perhaps an Assamite-only permanent, a Path of [whatever the non-blood
> one is in the WW fiction].
See, this is a much better idea. I'm glad we can agree. :)
> the Presence bleeders. So if you get to the tourney and you have 3 in
> 20 decks being combat, your chances aren't good to not see much S:CE.
> Now the IG deck may not care, but the rest of those combat decks do.
Of course, the rest of those combat decks should be *expecting* to see S:CE
at almost every table, and should have methods for dealing with it, right?
[IG]
> > Hardly. It'll prevent lots of other annoying things, like Coma,
> > Entombment, etc. :)
>
> Smarty pants. Yeah okay, S:CE, Coma and Entombment.
Thaumaturgy, weapons, etc.
:)
[TB]
> > Well, it works okay for the Tremere, but not so good for lots of other
> > decks. Though DOM/POT TB/punch/Taste of Vitae works okay.
>
> If the opponent has a lot of blood.
True. Well, if by a lot, you mean 2 or so. Yeah, it doesn't work so well
if they have very little blood, but then again, this combination is only
found on larger vampires (Chas being the exception), and if they don't have
a lot of blood, you're probably torporizing them anyway. Good deal all
around, right?
> > Of course, TB (2 blood) + hands for 1 + Blur(hands, hands) is a total
> > cost of 5 blood, which is rarely a winning proposition. :) And then
> > you have Parnassus and Parminedes...
>
> Wait, what? I'm saying to use TB against FS. So even if the FS'er
> Blurs on you, it doesn't matter. You've limited him to handstrikes,
> so he'll hit you for 1 and you can still S:CE after his first strike.
I don't know why anyone would ever use *both* TB and S:CE. Well, I can see
how one would do this in your suggestion, but I think it's a bad idea. I
really think that TB is mostly for combat decks, not the other way around.
Maybe that's just a bad taste in my mouth from the *original* TB being used
by the Ventrue to stop opposing combat decks. Bleh.
[testing]
> Yeah, we hadn't played in a while, and we all originally played with
> FS beating Dodge and S:CE anyway, so it was easy to get them to go for
> it. Don't know when the next game will be.
Well good luck...
Xian
Shaun McIsaac
> [First Strike]
> > But I could definitely be wrong about this, and am absolutely open to
> > counter-arguments here.
> combat except for Gangrel Drawing out the Beast/Scorpion Sting/Claws?
Animalism combat beats them in any case, even long. Bats + crows vs
an assamite's two manuevers and Blood Sweat is way in favor of the
person whose combat cards don't cost blood. Tremere with a simple
theft isn't too far off either...
> Psyche, Telepathic Tracking, and Perfect Clarity are the most useful because
> they have non-S:CE related powers as well...fairly freely cyclable if there
> is no S:CE around. Coordinate Attacks and Thoughts Betrayed are just about
> as good because they're pretty much always usable as well.
Perfect clarity and TB? At 2 blood I'd hardly call that freely
cyclable.
Shaun McIsaac
> "Patrick Harris" <pha...@sfopera.com> wrote in message
> news:2d0d1f86.02012...@posting.google.com...
> Though the Assamites interestingly have some THA.
No, they have tha. Only 2 have THA, Al-ashrad at 9 (expensive), and
Ur-Shulgi (you are kidding, right?). And remember that you need THA
for PC to stop combat cards.
> Zahir, Parnassus, Qadir
> ul-Ghani, Al-Ashrad, and Ur-Shulgi all have qui/tha, along with Patrizia
> Giovanni (ugh) and Elisabetta Romano (eh). It'd be funny to play, though I
> doubt it'd work well. PC also has a high cost, which means that it can't be
> used that much. At the right time, it's killer, though.
It's nice to stop that obedience, sure. But I don't see the assamites
using PC as a S:CE hoser when they can just psyche.
> > focus a large part of the deck towards dealing with S:CE; half-assing
> > it just doesn't seem to work. And it's much harder to build a
> > non-combat deck that deals well with S:CE. If a deck deals well with
>
> Why does a non-combat deck *care* whether the opponent S:CEs or not?
FoM, and to a lesser extent majesty and earth meld give the person
playing them a rather large advantage.
> > Of course, fudging with the FS rule doesn't make S:CE that much harder
> > to add in or use. But it adds another style similar to IG, meaning
> > that maybe S:CE isn't quite enough on it's own to tack onto a deck.
> If First Strike beats everything, again, what could a *non-combat* deck use
> to beat the Assamites?
A gun. Mark V is nice for this, as is deer rifle, but they all work.
The constant barrage of manuevers will dry out the assamites supply
rather quickly, and the damage coming back at them is important since
qui combat cost so damn much. The ivory bow is pretty much a death
knell as well, and it isn't that hard to fit into a deck.
> Try testing it if you're able. I don't think you're going to get too many
> volunteers, but you might. Then build a deck to break it, if you can. At
> minimum, run a few combats with sample minions and see what happens. I
> would think that something like:
> 4 Haven Uncovered
> 12 Bum's Rush/Clandestine Contract
> 12 Blood Sweat
> 6 Taste of Death
> 12 Shadow Feint
> 8 Blur
> 12 Flash
> Would be sufficient to prove just how wrong the idea is. Again, the
> question is: "What could a non-combat deck use to survive this?"
> Xian
> Answer: nothing.
You need to shadow feint, flash, and taste to stop the ivory bow one
time, and since you can't diablerize, there's no reason the minion
with the bow won't haunt you repeatedly. The deer rifle takes 1/4th
of your manuevers away each time you want to strike at long range,
other guns take 1/6th (and all do damage unless you feint a
torporizing blow).
Andrew S. Davidson
>Except that it will never happen as the playerbase would be devestated
>by it and would likely leave the game. The playerbase is not big enough
>to be split in 2 factions, so a CL would only be bad for the game at
>this point.
I like to play in sealed/draft events because their format levels the
playing field. I don't see why WW couldn't sanction a CL tournament
format too alongside the NCL one. The irritating split at the moment
is that the CL players (who do exist) don't use a standard number - it
was amazing to see the recent deck post from player whose group uses
CL3. A uniform standard of 5, say, might help.
>Both had DOM/AUS for bleed bounce- that's the mechanic you should be
>looking at here, not the CL. Bleed bounce as a mechanic is wholely
>difficult to deal with, even under NCL. Under 5CL it gets worse, not
>better.
Bleed bounce is efficient because it's both a defense and an attack -
you get double value from one effect. It's like the cards which take
control of another player's permanents - these are usually the
strongest cards in any game (e.g. ToGP/Hostile Takeover in this one).
If this is undercosted and there aren't enough counters to this then
maybe the game needs to get some.
>I'm not sure that generating a less random player-mix as in this
>tournament was such a good idea either. If you win quickly, don't you
>just get to play the bad players who continously get ousted again and
>again? eliminating downtime between rounds should be a matter of a
>player playing a deck that something other than roll-over and die. Out
>early? Your fault. Play better decks.
The early ousts will get to play each other. That's like the Swiss
system from chess. If the game copies chess's ELO ratings, then it
makes sense to copy their Swiss system too. These are both designed
to match players against other players of equal ability because that
makes for a more enjoyable game.
>I think any company that wants to launch a CCG these days has to get it
>right, no excuses. They have had 9 years to look at Wizards of the
>Coast. no reason to fail now if you know what you're doing. I hope Lotr
>does well, it should do with that sort of strong licence. then again,
>decipher did have the Star Wars licence, see how far that got them.
Decipher made a bundle from SWCCG - they were prepared to pay about
$50M to renew the licence but Hasbro outbid them I think. It'll be
funny seeing the WotC remake trying to establish itself though. It's
designed by Garfield but will that make any of you try it? It uses
dice, I hear - that's all I need to know.
>I think the points you put forward bely more problems with game
>mechanics and card design than any CL issues. CL is a clunky messy fix
>for for more inherrent problems;. Whilst i think soul gem should be
>errata'd i don't want to play under CL, having done so in the past i had
>less fun due to less diversity in the game. And that's what it's all
>about, fun.
The game is no longer static. The new cards are changing the balance
of the CL/NCL argument. The new rares are costly and that makes NCL
an elite game. And the availability of new cards makes new strategies
possible which will freshen up the CL metagame.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>Dude, it is a tarding card game. You aren't going to be able to make every
>possible deck ever, as there are simply too many permutations.
In most other CCG there are players who collect a "play-set" - enough
of each card that they can build any conceivable deck. This is
impractical in an NCL game.
Andrew
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes:
>I like to play in sealed/draft events because their format levels the
>playing field. I don't see why WW couldn't sanction a CL tournament
>format too alongside the NCL one.
Because a sanctioned CL tournament style does not exist.
HTH HAND
--
James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c.
PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti
James Coupe
>of each card that they can build any conceivable deck. This is
>impractical in an NCL game.
True. This stems from the fact that there are dozens more conceivable
decks under an NL game. (Though many of those will be effectively
unplayable.)
This does not, and has not, stopped players from collecting a set of
cards with which they can play lots of decks they want to. But it does
mean that players can go out and buy some boosters if no-one is willing
to trade them something and know that, even if they don't get what they
want, they won't have just entirely wasted ten dollars. Or whatever.
It's also true that highly competitive decks can be built from commons,
meaning that most players can collect sufficient commons of the sort
they want to construct lots of decks - votes, stealth, intercept,
whatever. And sure, those with more cards or more luck can construct
decks with lots of uncommon cards - Weather Control/Bloodform. The only
problem occurs when that deck is unbeatable *because* it's made from
uncommon cards.
If you can't build a deck, trade for it, buy some more cards, buy some
singles or don't build it. Develop a set of cards that mimics *your*
play-style - no point in having tons of Banishment knocking around if
you hate playing vote decks - and you can create many decks with a
really quite small investment.
Steve Wampler
-Steve Wampler
Patrick Harris
> "Patrick Harris" <pha...@sfopera.com> wrote...
[each combat archetype has a 1-for-1 way to beat S:CE]
> > Yeah, but they have to decide whether they want to include it. They
> > have to decide whether they want to try to get around Dodge.
> > Maneuvers. Prevent. That's a lot of cards to add in if you want to
> > deal with all those things. The opposing deck decided to put in S:CE
> > to deal with almost all the combat decks. Just one addition.
>
> Thoughts Betrayed and Telepathic Tracking are no-brainers. TB beats Dodge
> inherently, and the Tremere generally don't care about maneuvers or prevent
> most of the time. Telepathic Tracking offers a great effect even when it
> doesn't beat S:CE, so it's pretty much good to go.
TB is expensive though. Enough that I wouldn't say it's quite a
no-brainer.
TT is nice, definitely. Moreso for Tzimsce than the other
Auspex-using clans I think, since the Fiends have many "for the
duration of combat" effects. For Toreador though, they also have
access to Psyche!, which they'd probably prefer instead of TT.
> > I don't think the change has to be drastic. Of course, that point of
> > view depends on how drastic one thinks the FS rule change would be.
>
> Yeah. I think overturning a rule that has been in place for 8 years is
> drastic. :)
My memory may be fuzzy on this, but were the original Jyhad rules a
bit opaque on this? I swear it could be interpreted either way until
a clarifying ruleset came out (I think with V:TES). I know my local
playgroups played with FS resolving first for a long time, then
gradually we changed over.
[Xian doesn't think Assamites need any help]
> > Any other combat (or non-combat I guess) style being able to reduce
> > the frequency of S:CE is good, I think. It doesn't have to be
> > Assamites, or even the FS rule. Changing the FS rule just seems to be
> > a good way to do so, and that change really affects the Assamites,
>
> Eh. S:CE can stay as it is for all I care. If I'm building a combat deck,
> I'll include ways to deal with S:CE. If I'm not building a combat deck, I
> shouldn't care about S:CE.
I think you're oversimplifying here. For some combat archetypes,
dealing with S:CE just isn't feasible, either because they simply
don't have access to the cards needed, or because including those
cards would degrade the effectiveness of the deck.
> > which is how they came up. Another answer to your question, what else
> > do Assamites really do? I mean the majority of their cards are
> > designed to beat other minions up. It's really hard for them to bleed
> > or vote. So if they're going to be geared towards combat, they should
> > be good at it. Not marginal.
>
> Heartblood of the Clan machine? :) I think that they are good at combat,
> just not against the ultimate combat trump. They're good against everyone
> else. Assassins for hard targets.
Ah, but the ultimate combat trump is everywhere. I mean who can't
S:CE these days?
> [is presence, and not S:CE the actual problem?]
[if it isn't, it's a big part of it]
> > Although I'm gonna say that if you're using Assamites to intercept,
> > you're diluting their combat effectiveness.
>
> I dunno. They've got that AUS QUI card now...that could make Assamite
> intercept really really deadly. I've traded most of mine away, though.
> Wanted to play with it, but I got an offer I couldn't refuse.
Right, but adding in a discipline still dilutes the deck, regardless
of how many Assamites already have that discipline.
[Shadow Step wasn't reprinted - shucks]
> > > Yes, S:CE is quite rampant, but I think it's probably better to make
> > > changes to the current cardset, rather than making sweeping rule
> > > changes.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean here. You mean to add cards that make it
> > less enticing to use S:CE, but not touch the rules at all? That'd
>
> Yes. This is what I meant.
>
> > probably work, and I could probably go along with that. It just
> > seemed like the FS rule change would be an easier way, *plus* it would
> > help the Assamites who are IMO weak.
>
> It'd be "easier" in that it would be adding fewer words/cards to the current
> set. On the other hand, it could have a dramatically unforseen effect on
> the game, which is the primary reason I don't want it to happen, and by
> "dramatically unforseen," I mean something that is worse than all of the
> counter-arguments I am offering. FS beats S:CE and then some combo that we
> haven't thought up yet is the be-all-end-all of the game. Not good.
True, but the same can happen by adding a new card too. The hope is
that, either way, it's thoroughly tested and/or thought out prior to
introducing the new card or rules change. Which is why we throw these
things around in threads.
Now you may have convinced me that, as things are now with FS cards
and the Assamites in particular, changing the FS rule would be too
detrimental to the game (*may* have - I still don't know), but I still
think that FS should have resolved first from the beginning.
> > > I think it's an unreasonable assumption that the Assamite *won't* be
> > > able to incapacitate the opposing vampire on its first strike. Sure,
> > > they won't every time, but you could reasonably guarantee that you
> > > would be able to.
> > >
> > > Rush someone with less than 2 blood (not uncommon), or rush someone
> > > without Fortitude. You could also set up some sort of combo where you
> > > rush with a weenie with QUI, Thin Blood, let them S:CE, and then rush
> > > with the heavy hitter.
> >
> > Well, depends on what you're up against. If the average vampire is 3
> > or less, yeah. 4 caps too. I'm seeing more and more mid-caps though.
> > 5-7 range. I don't think 3 unpreventable is going to do it against
> > those.
>
> Wait until they're down a little on blood, then hammer them.
I think we're both talking from the point of view of our local
metagames. I think I may see more games where the minions are making
out better than the methuselahs, and you may see more games where the
minions are damaged goods.
> Alternatively:
> Rush, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, S:CE, Assamite
> plays Psyche, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, rinse,
> wash, repeat. High card cost, but nigh unstoppable. I could build a deck
> around it. Wouldn't work every single time, but it's doable.
Doable, yes. I'd think a deck that uses a 3-card combo per round
wouldn't be very consistent though. 4 cards per round if you want to
keep your vampires healthy with Taste of Vitae.
> > > Is
> > > there an equivalent long-range deck that screws the Assamites?
> >
> > Not that I can think of off the top of my head, no. Tremere with
> > Fortitude and/or Celerity? Something would have to tone the Assamites
> > down.
>
> Heh. Not likely. :)
Oh come on, Xian! If they didn't TB, they just stay at long range,
Thefting the blood back that they lose to the Assamites' damage each
round. At least, until they could fire off a Walk and/or a Blood to
Water to stop the Assamite from playing any more of those nasty cards.
> > I'm the guy trying to make the intercept deck that can actually oust
> > it's prey regularly. Last attempt was a weird Tzimsce/Smiling
> > Jack/Pulse/Thaumaturgy thing.
>
> Hah! And they call *me* crazy! Oh, wait, no...I've seen that sort of deck
> win a tournament. Maybe you're not crazy. :)
More of a masochist I think. =)
Btw, if you know where I can take a peak at that deck you mention, I'd
definitely like to take a look at it.
> > > So in other words, we should include a whole new set of cards that are
> > > FS, and anti-FS. In order to change the rules to make FS better. I'm
> > > not sure this is really a viable solution.
> >
> > Ack, no. We're talking about "we", if we're the rules team and
> > designers? I think changing the FS rule is one. Then I can see 1-3
>
> Yes, that "we". The one of which I am not actually a subset, but refer to
> as "we" kind of like a sports team is "we".
>
> > cards added to the next set that counter it. Not a whole new set of
> > cards or anything. And actually, I'm not sure that FS would need to
> > be countered, but Assamite combat in particular. Though if indeed it
>
> Clan hosers, huh? :) Not so sure about that.
Basically, I guess. I'm not sure about that either. =)
> > If the FS rule is left as is, in order to prune S:CE back a bit,
> > *then* you'd need to add a lot of cards.
>
> Not necessarily. Maybe just a couple to make long-range combat more viable.
How would that affect?
> > > I don't agree. Yes, S:CE is the most powerful combat defense. It
> > > doesn't however, take care of almost every combat strategy. Most
> > > combat decks have a way around S:CE, it's just that most of them
> > > aren't pre-emptive, like IG and Thoughts Betrayed. That's too bad. I
> > > think what we currently have is pretty sufficient.
> >
> > I dunno. Maybe it's that S:CE is too vanilla. I mean who can't use
> > it? Add onto that the Assamites aren't effective, due to S:CE (IMO).
>
> Maybe, as Derek Ray suggests, the Assamites aren't *meant* to ever win with
> a pure rush deck. They're *assassins* after all, not simple thugs who beat
> up everything in their way.
That's getting into the RPG backstory a bit though. Now I personally
like involving those aspects into the card game, but many have argued
that we shouldn't. But to respond, if they aren't supposed to beat
combat decks, and they have a tougher time against most non-combat
decks (due to S:CE), what do they do?
> > I mean it's hard enough for a Potence IG deck to win a table, and they
> > can easily deal with S:CE.
>
> True. Potence IG also has access to a lot smaller minions, which helps.
> The Assamites have to rely on larger minions, which slows things down in
> terms of getting vampires out and number of actions availabe. Making them
> somewhat unsuited for pure rush.
*snip*
[changing the FS rule]
> > > Okay, I'll admit that I don't think that it would be the end of all
> > > non-Assamite decks, but I do think that it would power them up to the
> > > point where non-combat decks have to pack anti-FS cards, as well as
> > > standard anti-combat cards. I don't think this is a good thing.
> >
> > Why not? Players have to decide to pack anti-vote if they want to
> > counter that. Anti-bleed if they want to counter that.
> > Anti-intercept. Anti-stealth. Anti-retainers. Anti-equipment.
> > Anti-master cards.
>
> Players have to include a strategy for dealing with bleed, yes. They don't
> have to include cards that specifically deal with bleed. Potence rush works
> fine. :) Bleeding is a basic mechanic of the game. There should be
> thought put into dealing with it.
>
> Players have to decide if they want to include stealth or intercept, but
> they don't have to play the stealth/intercept game if they don't want to.
> Again, Potence rush is a good example. Stealth and intercept are basic
> mechanics of the game, so they must be taken into account.
>
> Anti-retainers? Are you crazy? :)
Hehehe... hey, I play a lot of Tzimisce and Giovanni.
> Anti-master card stuff is available, but lots of decks don't bother
> including it. Only if the player wants to. Anti-FS might fall in here.
> People can pack anti-FS if they want to, but they shouldn't feel that they
> *must* include it. Neither of these is a basic (as in building-block...they
> do exist in the base ruleset, certainly) mechanic of the game, so they
> shouldn't need to be planned for in *every* single deck, IMO.
Hmm... don't know if I agree with you here. I think the Master Phase
is a basic building-block, same as stealth/intercept and bleeding.
You don't *have* to include it (or ways to deal with it), but I think
you have to consider it.
[RtI (that) vs. FS rule change (this)]
> > it, and that single action could oust someone. That was insanely
> > overpowered. This applies only to Celerity, and combat decks, really,
> > so I think it's just a hair overpowered. I mean sure, they can wipe
> > out minions all day, but they still need to be able to take out a
> > Methuselah with other cards/actions.
>
> Of course, if they can efficiently wipe out minions, there's not a lot
> stopping them from winning. Trust me, I play lots of rush, I know how it
> works...
No no, not saying that. I didn't mean that it's hard to finish the
methuselah after eliminating the minions, but that you still have to
actually take all the actions to do so (in contrast to RtI, where the
1 action does take out the methuselah).
*snip*
> > Although I still want FS to beat out S:CE (not necessarily Dodge),
> > what about this?: Instead of changing the FS rule and adding a couple
> > of cards to balance it (Celerity specifically), why not add a couple
> > of cards give Celerity the ability to beat FS and/or Dodge? Hmm...
> > perhaps an Assamite-only permanent, a Path of [whatever the non-blood
> > one is in the WW fiction].
>
> See, this is a much better idea. I'm glad we can agree. :)
> > the Presence bleeders. So if you get to the tourney and you have 3 in
> > 20 decks being combat, your chances aren't good to not see much S:CE.
> > Now the IG deck may not care, but the rest of those combat decks do.
>
> Of course, the rest of those combat decks should be *expecting* to see S:CE
> at almost every table, and should have methods for dealing with it, right?
I think this is sort of a catch-22. If you want to play a non-IG
combat deck, you have to figure out a way to deal with S:CE to be
effective in a tourney. If you want to play a be effective in a
tourney and have a way to deal with S:CE, you really can't play a
non-IG combat deck.
Not that you absolutely cannot play a non-IG combat deck and be
effective in a tourney. But it's much more difficult.
> [TB]
> > > Well, it works okay for the Tremere, but not so good for lots of other
> > > decks. Though DOM/POT TB/punch/Taste of Vitae works okay.
> >
> > If the opponent has a lot of blood.
>
> True. Well, if by a lot, you mean 2 or so. Yeah, it doesn't work so well
> if they have very little blood, but then again, this combination is only
> found on larger vampires (Chas being the exception), and if they don't have
> a lot of blood, you're probably torporizing them anyway. Good deal all
> around, right?
Well, true, but if they're using Potence then they're probably not
using TB, since IG is cheaper and for their purposes will achieve the
same result.
> > I'm saying to use TB against FS. So even if the FS'er
> > Blurs on you, it doesn't matter. You've limited him to handstrikes,
> > so he'll hit you for 1 and you can still S:CE after his first strike.
>
> I don't know why anyone would ever use *both* TB and S:CE. Well, I can see
> how one would do this in your suggestion, but I think it's a bad idea.
Well, it'd be more of a situation where you had both in your deck, to
deal with different combat scenarios, but against the FS deck you'd
actually get to use them both at once.
You'll figure out another reason to use both at once though, I'm sure.
=)
It'll involve Smudge the Ignored, Tremere Justicar (PA), Infernal
Familiar and Summon the Great Smudge Beast.
> I really think that TB is mostly for combat decks, not the other way around.
> Maybe that's just a bad taste in my mouth from the *original* TB being used
> by the Ventrue to stop opposing combat decks. Bleh.
Yeah, actually the deck I was thinking of was a Ventrue deck playing
in a combat heavy environment, though not necessarily Potence combat.
Maybe more Tremere/Assamite/Tzimisce 'craft. I could also see TB
being used in a Malk bleed deck perhaps. I definitely see TB used
more on the defensive side of things.
p.
James Coupe
>> inherently, and the Tremere generally don't care about maneuvers or prevent
>> most of the time. Telepathic Tracking offers a great effect even when it
>> doesn't beat S:CE, so it's pretty much good to go.
>
>TB is expensive though. Enough that I wouldn't say it's quite a
>no-brainer.
A no brainer for inclusion in such a list, more than anything. It's
certainly interesting to use.
Of course, a Tremere deck will benefit *greatly* from Ankara Citadel if
it's planning on making extensive use of such, since it will save an
awful lot of blood.
Certainly, using it is tricky, in that you have to play off some things
against some others.
>TT is nice, definitely. Moreso for Tzimsce than the other
>Auspex-using clans I think, since the Fiends have many "for the
>duration of combat" effects. For Toreador though, they also have
>access to Psyche!, which they'd probably prefer instead of TT.
True - which is why Telepathic Tracking is such a nice card. Balanced,
without being stupid. Versatile, without being uber-useful.
>My memory may be fuzzy on this, but were the original Jyhad rules a
>bit opaque on this? I swear it could be interpreted either way until
>a clarifying ruleset came out (I think with V:TES). I know my local
>playgroups played with FS resolving first for a long time, then
>gradually we changed over.
AFAIK, it was always played that way officially.
>> > Any other combat (or non-combat I guess) style being able to reduce
>> > the frequency of S:CE is good, I think. It doesn't have to be
>> > Assamites, or even the FS rule. Changing the FS rule just seems to be
>> > a good way to do so, and that change really affects the Assamites,
>>
>> Eh. S:CE can stay as it is for all I care. If I'm building a combat deck,
>> I'll include ways to deal with S:CE. If I'm not building a combat deck, I
>> shouldn't care about S:CE.
>
>I think you're oversimplifying here. For some combat archetypes,
>dealing with S:CE just isn't feasible,
True. But for those combat archetypes, dealing with half a dozen other
things may not be feasible.
Getting into combat, the Assamites do okay. Contract and Clandestine
Contract are both not bad, since they provide a certain amount of
stealth. You can probably pick your target. Swallowed by the Night in
a deck half a dozen times provides more options.
Okay, so we're in combat. Before range? Well, other people can tap the
Elysium (not against Assamites) or Purchase Pact (not against
Assamites). The Brujah could be trying Increased Strength or Torn
Signpost. Well, you don't have a nice equivalent of that but you can
try Thin Blood (which is similar-ish) or Disease, as a semi-counter to
that.
Range? Well, you're doing pretty well. You're probably not going to be
relying on Obfuscate (though Swallowed is a good option for you), but
you do have Flash and, potentially, Silence of Death. About the same as
the Brujah, really. Probably a little better than the Nosferatu -
unless they play Animalism cards at you. You do have the option of Wave
of Lethargy to screw up other people's maneuvering tactics so perhaps
*fractionally* ahead of the Brujah, though they have Thrown Gate et al
with built in maneuvers. The Gangrel will probably out-pace you,
because they have Quick Meld and Animalism. But you're doing really
well unless someone plays a range setting option.
So, moving to strikes. You have the option of lots of unpreventable
damage. The Tremere can Theft, but that has the downside of not being
damage. Or they can play Soul Burn et al, but that's a bit more
limited. You can play Blur, too, so you get lots of those strikes. Few
other people can gather useful forms of unpreventable damage.
You could strike with aggro - hitting on a later strike to maximise burn
possibilities because of your Celerity. The Gangrel could too, but they
lose out on the blur options. Shadow of the Wolf isn't great. (Which
is about right.) The Brujah can try Burning Wrath, too.
You also have a few weird strikes.
Now, what can other people do back? Well, you have the option of
maneuvering to long or dodging against anything tricky. And you've
screwed up their damage prevention. And since you can multi-strike, you
can screw up their dodges.
You can throw down Taste of Vitae - which unlike the Tremere using Theft
will get you some blood. And unlike the Gangrel, you've probably hit
with quite a lot - rather than a one or two point poke - so the fact
that you don't get the first blood from the aggro (the one that wounds
them, rather than burning any blood) isn't a huge issue. And the Brujah
are only level pegging.
You can also try to prevent a little with Sideslip. Disease is helping
here too - especially against Gangrel pokes.
Are other people then refilling? Well, you have Blood Clots knocking
around too.
So, what are your pit-falls? Strike: Combat ends, certainly. But what
else?
Let's try this one:
You go into a combat. It might not be the one you'd chosen, but you've
a better chance of choosing than the Brujah.
You can stop Gangrel having a go by throwing down Weakness.
You can probably maneuver to range; someone else might range-set, but it
won't gain them much. You're superlative (or at least very
good) at long range, and at close range you can still Blur for
three as a good try, anyway.
You can strike. They can't prevent it. If they dodge, you Blur. If
they S:CE, you prevent it.
Precisely what defence do you suggest they mount?
>Ah, but the ultimate combat trump is everywhere. I mean who can't
>S:CE these days?
True - but how many people *are* doing it.
Metagame, metagame, metagame.
>True, but the same can happen by adding a new card too. The hope is
>that, either way, it's thoroughly tested and/or thought out prior to
>introducing the new card or rules change. Which is why we throw these
>things around in threads.
Where would you add the new card?
Well, if you give it to Obfuscate, it goes to the Nosferatu, the
Malkavians (out of turn Rotschreck agg damage) and the City Gangrel,
with Setites possibly doing something, maybe.
If you give it to Celerity, you give it to the Brujah and Toreador who
certainly don't need much help.
So, you give it to Quietus or Assamites. And in both cases, you give it
to Fida'i. One of the best ways of dealing with anti-S:CE is permanent
weenies.
Bring out multiple Fida'i and a biggie. Untap the Fida'i, run in and
Taste of Death or Blood Sweat them or something. Whatever's
appropriate. You probably want to be using a Haven Uncovered or,
potentially, a Covenant of Blood. Go for the burn using Provisions of
the Silsila on the biggie (Clandestine Contract should help you deal
with problems with master phase actions). Or use Sacrificial Lamb.
Either way, you can refill a fair bit.
This is an option not available to many others. And if you throw a few
Discipline cards around, you can even Psyche! with the weenies for added
urgh.
>> Alternatively:
>> Rush, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, S:CE, Assamite
>> plays Psyche, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, rinse,
>> wash, repeat. High card cost, but nigh unstoppable. I could build a deck
>> around it. Wouldn't work every single time, but it's doable.
>
>Doable, yes. I'd think a deck that uses a 3-card combo per round
>wouldn't be very consistent though.
You'd be surprised. Bum's Rush, Flash, Torn Signpost, Undead Strength,
Taste of Vitae can turn up with frightening regularity - if that's what
your deck is built for.
>> > If the FS rule is left as is, in order to prune S:CE back a bit,
>> > *then* you'd need to add a lot of cards.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Maybe just a couple to make long-range combat more viable.
>
>How would that affect?
It would help gun decks, the Tremere and the Assamites, predominantly.
Night Vision Goggles/Radar
2 pool
Equipment
Before range is chosen in the first round of combat, the vampire with
this equipment may set range to long (skip the Establish Range step).
If the opposing vampire has Obfuscate or the opposing ally may play
(some) cards requiring Obfuscate, you must burn a blood to use NVG's set
range ability.
(Art: A vampire with night vision goggles leaning over the top of a
building, possibly crawling Spiderman like, with a target in view. Or
if radar, a vampire with a small portable radar (silence, techno-geeks)
in their hands and the target at the other end of an alley.)
(The above card design is public domain.)
If decks don't have to worry about maneuvering so much, they can spend
more time on repeat combats when they *do* get S:CE-ed.
Xian
>
> No, they have tha. Only 2 have THA, Al-ashrad at 9 (expensive), and
> Ur-Shulgi (you are kidding, right?). And remember that you need THA
> for PC to stop combat cards.
I repeat, some THA. And yes, there are some with tha. And no, I'm
not kidding. I've come up with crazier stuff before. If you don't
believe me, take a look...it's out there. Though I wouldn't use
Ur-Shulgi in this deck. Well, maybe I would, but probably not. It'd
work pretty okay with Minion Tap/Provision of the Silsila.
Zahir, Hand of the Silsila
Parnassus
Qadir ul-Ghani
Al-Ashrad, Amr of Alamut
Ur-Shulgi, The Shepherd
plus Elisabetta Romano and Patrizia Giovanni...add a few skill cards,
and voila!
> It's nice to stop that obedience, sure. But I don't see the assamites
> using PC as a S:CE hoser when they can just psyche.
I believe there was some sort of complaint about Psyche! being
inefficient because it doesn't exactly trump S:CE, it just starts
another round. I'm pretty sure that's why I was suggesting this in
the first place.
> > Why does a non-combat deck *care* whether the opponent S:CEs or not?
>
> FoM, and to a lesser extent majesty and earth meld give the person
> playing them a rather large advantage.
FoM, maybe. The others, again, does it really matter that much? If
their strategy relies heavily on your blocking them so that they can
untap, simply stop blocking them.
> > If First Strike beats everything, again, what could a *non-combat* deck use
> > to beat the Assamites?
>
> A gun. Mark V is nice for this, as is deer rifle, but they all work.
True, sometimes. Of course, against either of these, the first time
the Assamite *is* able to get the better of you, you're probably dead.
> The constant barrage of manuevers will dry out the assamites supply
> rather quickly, and the damage coming back at them is important since
> qui combat cost so damn much. The ivory bow is pretty much a death
> knell as well, and it isn't that hard to fit into a deck.
Sideslip? I auto-include that in almost any combat deck with Celerity
in it.
> > Would be sufficient to prove just how wrong the idea is. Again, the
> > question is: "What could a non-combat deck use to survive this?"
> > Xian
> > Answer: nothing.
>
> You need to shadow feint, flash, and taste to stop the ivory bow one
> time, and since you can't diablerize, there's no reason the minion
> with the bow won't haunt you repeatedly. The deer rifle takes 1/4th
> of your manuevers away each time you want to strike at long range,
> other guns take 1/6th (and all do damage unless you feint a
> torporizing blow).
How much of the "non-combat" deck are you devoting to guns and
equipping said guns now? Just curious. :) And at what point does it
cease to become a non-combat deck?
Xian
Xian
> no-brainer.
Well, I mostly use it for the Tremere (pretty much the only clan that
generally tries to do combat with DOM and doesn't have POT, unlike
Giovanni/Lasombra), and the 2 blood cost isn't that high since it can
generally be recouped with a first round Theft of Vitae.
> TT is nice, definitely. Moreso for Tzimsce than the other
> Auspex-using clans I think, since the Fiends have many "for the
> duration of combat" effects. For Toreador though, they also have
> access to Psyche!, which they'd probably prefer instead of TT.
True. Though I think I'd really only use it for the !Toreador with
Art of Pain. Unless, of course, you have Masika with an Assault
Rifle. Even then, it'd probably be better to Psyche!
> > > I don't think the change has to be drastic. Of course, that point of
> > > view depends on how drastic one thinks the FS rule change would be.
> >
> > Yeah. I think overturning a rule that has been in place for 8 years is
> > drastic. :)
>
> My memory may be fuzzy on this, but were the original Jyhad rules a
> bit opaque on this? I swear it could be interpreted either way until
> a clarifying ruleset came out (I think with V:TES). I know my local
> playgroups played with FS resolving first for a long time, then
> gradually we changed over.
I threw out my all of my non-current rulebooks a while ago, so I can't
say for certain. However, checking Google, we find the following:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3dtudn%245me%40darkstar.UCSC.EDU
Wherein Thomas R Wylie indicates that Dodge negates a strike done with
First Strike, in order to bring it into line with S:CE. Indicating
that S:CE did indeed beat First Strike in the original ruleset. (Of
course, this thread also includes a ruling that Rotschreck targets the
vampire inflicting the damage, but that was later overturned...)
> [Xian doesn't think Assamites need any help]
Maybe I'll build an Assamite deck sometime soon, to see what I
*really* think they need. :) Aside from the *one* I just built and
haven't played yet. Maybe this weekend in a pick-up game.
> > Eh. S:CE can stay as it is for all I care. If I'm building a combat deck,
> > I'll include ways to deal with S:CE. If I'm not building a combat deck, I
> > shouldn't care about S:CE.
>
> I think you're oversimplifying here. For some combat archetypes,
> dealing with S:CE just isn't feasible, either because they simply
Combat archetypes:
Rush
Intercept
Bruise & [Bleed|Vote]
> don't have access to the cards needed,
If you mean the disciplines chosen for the deck don't have access,
then I suppose that's an acceptable argument. However, that really
only applies to Protean and Animalism. I can live with them not
having anti-S:CE. I've laid this out before, but briefly:
Protean - lots of agg, some prevention and other effects. Doesn't
need anti-S:CE.
Animalism - lots of free combat cards, retainer damage. Doesn't need
anti-S:CE.
Virtually every other offensive combat discipline has access to
anti-S:CE either in-discipline, or as a "related" discipline.
Specificially, I'm thinking of Telepathic Tracking for Vicissitude
(hardly any Tzimisce without both). Vicissitude is almost as strong
as Protean, and it has Skin Trap for a close cousin to anti-S:CE...I
really don't think it needs anything in-discipline.
If your argument is that the players don't have access to the cards
needed, that's hardly an argument against the effectiveness of an
archetype.
> or because including those
> cards would degrade the effectiveness of the deck.
I fail to see how this follows. If your deck isn't effective against
S:CE and you want it to be, then you must include anti-S:CE to make it
more effective. If your deck isn't effective against S:CE, and you
want it to be, but you won't add the cards to make it effective
against S:CE, then you have to live with that decision (to not be
effective against S:CE). If your deck isn't effective against S:CE
and adding anti-S:CE will make it less effective, it must be a pretty
awful deck...or not be a combat deck.
> > I think that they are good at combat,
> > just not against the ultimate combat trump. They're good against everyone
> > else. Assassins for hard targets.
>
> Ah, but the ultimate combat trump is everywhere. I mean who can't
> S:CE these days?
Again, a lot of this is an argument against Presence including S:CE,
rather than anything else.
To draw in an element from the RPG, you could simply accept that the
majority of Assamites hired are hired by clans with presence
(Majesty), and are hired to take out other vampires without those
powers. Or not. Your choice.
> > I dunno. They've got that AUS QUI card now...that could make Assamite
> > intercept really really deadly. I've traded most of mine away, though.
> > Wanted to play with it, but I got an offer I couldn't refuse.
>
> Right, but adding in a discipline still dilutes the deck, regardless
> of how many Assamites already have that discipline.
I'm not sure how you're meaning "dilutes the deck". If I build a deck
that intends to take advantage of Draught of the Soul, it is build
around vampires that have aus qui or AUS QUI. Therefore, the library
will be built to these specifications, and have cards in it that
represent the vampire selection.
Unless, of course, you mean dilute = include larger minions, but I
don't necessarily see this as a drawback in and of itself.
> > It'd be "easier" in that it would be adding fewer words/cards to the current
> > set. On the other hand, it could have a dramatically unforseen effect on
> > the game, which is the primary reason I don't want it to happen, and by
> > "dramatically unforseen," I mean something that is worse than all of the
> > counter-arguments I am offering. FS beats S:CE and then some combo that we
> > haven't thought up yet is the be-all-end-all of the game. Not good.
>
> True, but the same can happen by adding a new card too. The hope is
Yes, but IME, changes to cards are accepted better than waffling on
fundamental rules. How annoying would it be to have FS changed to
beat S:CE, etc. and then a couple months later, changed right back. I
know a lot of people that would be incredibly upset by this. :)
> that, either way, it's thoroughly tested and/or thought out prior to
> introducing the new card or rules change. Which is why we throw these
> things around in threads.
Also true. But "thoroughly tested" is really a fiction. For while I
believe that the crew in Atlanta could really give the Assamites a
good run, what with Todd down there, they still can't think up
everything. Playtesting doesn't always work.
[Assamite tactics]
> I think we're both talking from the point of view of our local
> metagames. I think I may see more games where the minions are making
> out better than the methuselahs, and you may see more games where the
> minions are damaged goods.
Perhaps. Around here, I tend to do most of the damaging. :)
> > Alternatively:
> > Rush, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, S:CE, Assamite
> > plays Psyche, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, rinse,
> > wash, repeat. High card cost, but nigh unstoppable. I could build a deck
> > around it. Wouldn't work every single time, but it's doable.
>
> Doable, yes. I'd think a deck that uses a 3-card combo per round
> wouldn't be very consistent though. 4 cards per round if you want to
> keep your vampires healthy with Taste of Vitae.
Rush, Torn Signpost, IG, Blur. Goes up to 5 with ToV. Highly doable.
I do it frequently. And win. :)
[Tremere with For/Cel screw the Assamites]
> Oh come on, Xian! If they didn't TB, they just stay at long range,
TB is a good option, yes.
> Thefting the blood back that they lose to the Assamites' damage each
Losing game, especially against agg.
> round. At least, until they could fire off a Walk and/or a Blood to
> Water to stop the Assamite from playing any more of those nasty cards.
Assuming they get to second round, which is unlikely.
[Tzimisce/Pulse]
> Btw, if you know where I can take a peak at that deck you mention, I'd
> definitely like to take a look at it.
Check on www.thelasombra.com under tournament winning decks. It was
Kevin Mergen's deck from November or so.
> > > If the FS rule is left as is, in order to prune S:CE back a bit,
> > > *then* you'd need to add a lot of cards.
> >
> > Not necessarily. Maybe just a couple to make long-range combat more viable.
>
> How would that affect?
No clue. Just spouting off the top of my head. No time to think
about it now...maybe later.
> that we shouldn't. But to respond, if they aren't supposed to beat
> combat decks, and they have a tougher time against most non-combat
> decks (due to S:CE), what do they do?
No, I agree that they should be able to beat combat decks, they just
shouldn't be able to beat each and every other combat deck out there,
which they would with FS beating everything else.
[anti=master]
> Hmm... don't know if I agree with you here. I think the Master Phase
> is a basic building-block, same as stealth/intercept and bleeding.
It's a basic function of the game, but the game rarely hinges on it.
> You don't *have* to include it (or ways to deal with it), but I think
> you have to consider it.
This is why it isn't a building block. You *have* to think about how
(or if) you're going to deal with the aspects I mentioned, but lots of
people just ignore the masters.
> > I don't know why anyone would ever use *both* TB and S:CE. Well, I can see
> > how one would do this in your suggestion, but I think it's a bad idea.
>
> Well, it'd be more of a situation where you had both in your deck, to
> deal with different combat scenarios, but against the FS deck you'd
> actually get to use them both at once.
Too toolboxy for me. :)
> You'll figure out another reason to use both at once though, I'm sure.
> =)
> It'll involve Smudge the Ignored, Tremere Justicar (PA), Infernal
> Familiar and Summon the Great Smudge Beast.
Heh. I have come up with some pretty wacky stuff in my day. :)
Gotta run...
Xian
LSJ
> > bit opaque on this? I swear it could be interpreted either way until
> > a clarifying ruleset came out (I think with V:TES). I know my local
> > playgroups played with FS resolving first for a long time, then
> > gradually we changed over.
>
> I threw out my all of my non-current rulebooks a while ago, so I can't
> say for certain. However, checking Google, we find the following:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3dtudn%245me%40darkstar.UCSC.EDU
>
> Wherein Thomas R Wylie indicates that Dodge negates a strike done with
> First Strike, in order to bring it into line with S:CE. Indicating
> that S:CE did indeed beat First Strike in the original ruleset. (Of
> course, this thread also includes a ruling that Rotschreck targets the
> vampire inflicting the damage, but that was later overturned...)
The original rulebook was clear on S:CE vs. FS (S:CE wins):
"Note that combat ends is not affected by Dodge and even cancels strikes
with first strike." [Jyhad 15.3]
It was ambiguous on Dodge vs. FS (The Dodge section indicates, by omission,
that dodge wins, and the FS section indicates, by omission, that FS wins).
When the amiguity was questioned, the answer was always that Dodge wins,
as you cite above.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Patrick Harris
> Patrick Harris <pha...@sfopera.com> writes:
*snip*
> >> > Any other combat (or non-combat I guess) style being able to reduce
> >> > the frequency of S:CE is good, I think. It doesn't have to be
> >> > Assamites, or even the FS rule. Changing the FS rule just seems to be
> >> > a good way to do so, and that change really affects the Assamites,
> >>
> >> Eh. S:CE can stay as it is for all I care. If I'm building a combat deck,
> >> I'll include ways to deal with S:CE. If I'm not building a combat deck, I
> >> shouldn't care about S:CE.
> >
> >I think you're oversimplifying here. For some combat archetypes,
> >dealing with S:CE just isn't feasible,
>
> True. But for those combat archetypes, dealing with half a dozen other
> things may not be feasible.
>
> [Getting into combat, the Assamites do okay]
> [Before range, the Assamites do okay]
> [Range, the Assamites do pretty well]
> [Strikes, the Assamites do really well]
>
> You can throw down Taste of Vitae - which unlike the Tremere using Theft
> will get you some blood. And unlike the Gangrel, you've probably hit
> with quite a lot - rather than a one or two point poke - so the fact
> that you don't get the first blood from the aggro (the one that wounds
> them, rather than burning any blood) isn't a huge issue. And the Brujah
> are only level pegging.
>
> You can also try to prevent a little with Sideslip. Disease is helping
> here too - especially against Gangrel pokes.
>
> Are other people then refilling? Well, you have Blood Clots knocking
> around too.
>
> So, what are your pit-falls? Strike: Combat ends, certainly. But what
> else?
This is one of the problems I'm having. If Assamites are right up
there with Potence combat, or better, then why don't we see them?
Potence combat decks are fairly common I'd say. Why aren't Assamite
combat decks?
> Let's try this one:
>
> You go into a combat. It might not be the one you'd chosen, but you've
> a better chance of choosing than the Brujah.
> You can stop Gangrel having a go by throwing down Weakness.
> You can probably maneuver to range; someone else might range-set, but it
> won't gain them much. You're superlative (or at least very
> good) at long range, and at close range you can still Blur for
> three as a good try, anyway.
> You can strike. They can't prevent it. If they dodge, you Blur. If
> they S:CE, you prevent it.
>
> Precisely what defence do you suggest they mount?
Providing I'm not using an Obedience deck, in combat against an
Assamite deck packing all the cards they'd need to secure the above,
I'd do nothing and hope the Assamite deck clumped. That doesn't seem
too unlikely, since they're packing Weakness, maneuvers to ensure
range, Blur, Psyche!, cards to get into combat and the actual strike
cards.
That's the best I can do off the top of my head, but again, if the
Assamites can do this so well, why don't we see them more often?
> >Ah, but the ultimate combat trump is everywhere. I mean who can't
> >S:CE these days?
>
> True - but how many people *are* doing it.
>
> Metagame, metagame, metagame.
This is true in the metagame for the local playgroups that I see.
S:CE decks get dropped like they're hot in local games. When I go to
tournaments though, I see players who don't normally go with S:CE
decks bring them out. That in addition to the players that show up
only to tourneys, ignorant of the metagame and so bringing S:CE decks,
makes for the majority of the decks to be using S:CE.
> >True, but the same can happen by adding a new card too. The hope is
> >that, either way, it's thoroughly tested and/or thought out prior to
> >introducing the new card or rules change. Which is why we throw these
> >things around in threads.
>
> Where would you add the new card?
Adding a new card or cards to counter S:CE? I'd probably go with
Celerity if I wanted to only add 1 card, and if I wanted to add more
than 1 I'd probably go with Animalism plus an Assamite card.
Animalism would be nice, as it gives the Gangrel a chance, as well as
giving Tzimisce and Nosferatu more options.
> Well, if you give it to Obfuscate, it goes to the Nosferatu, the
> Malkavians (out of turn Rotschreck agg damage) and the City Gangrel,
> with Setites possibly doing something, maybe.
Agreed. Not Obf.
> If you give it to Celerity, you give it to the Brujah and Toreador who
> certainly don't need much help.
True, they don't really need help. It'd give them more options,
that's for sure.
> So, you give it to Quietus or Assamites. And in both cases, you give it
> to Fida'i. One of the best ways of dealing with anti-S:CE is permanent
> weenies.
You lost me here, unless you meant "...dealing with *S:CE*..."
Okay, reading what follows, you must've.
> Bring out multiple Fida'i and a biggie. Untap the Fida'i, run in and
> Taste of Death or Blood Sweat them or something. Whatever's
> appropriate. You probably want to be using a Haven Uncovered or,
> potentially, a Covenant of Blood. Go for the burn using Provisions of
> the Silsila on the biggie (Clandestine Contract should help you deal
> with problems with master phase actions). Or use Sacrificial Lamb.
> Either way, you can refill a fair bit.
>
> This is an option not available to many others. And if you throw a few
> Discipline cards around, you can even Psyche! with the weenies for added
> urgh.
If you mean using Sacrificial Lamb isn't an option available to many
others, that's true. Most other combat decks can't do that. They
can, however, diablerize and use Ritual of the Bitter Rose, if they
wish to risk a Blood Hunt. Not quite as good, but close.
If you mean using weenies, I disagree. There are a ton of Potence
weenies to throw around.
> >> Alternatively:
> >> Rush, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, S:CE, Assamite
> >> plays Psyche, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, rinse,
> >> wash, repeat. High card cost, but nigh unstoppable. I could build a deck
> >> around it. Wouldn't work every single time, but it's doable.
> >
> >Doable, yes. I'd think a deck that uses a 3-card combo per round
> >wouldn't be very consistent though.
>
> You'd be surprised. Bum's Rush, Flash, Torn Signpost, Undead Strength,
> Taste of Vitae can turn up with frightening regularity - if that's what
> your deck is built for.
Yes, but that Potence deck uses a 2-card combo each round. Not a 3 or
4-card combo. The Bum's Rush and Torn Signpost are once each combat.
The Assamite deck has to, each round, secure long range, give
themselves First Strike, strike, then Psyche!.
> >> > If the FS rule is left as is, in order to prune S:CE back a bit,
> >> > *then* you'd need to add a lot of cards.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily. Maybe just a couple to make long-range combat more > >> viable.
> >
> >How would that affect?
>
> It would help gun decks, the Tremere and the Assamites, predominantly.
>
> Night Vision Goggles/Radar
> 2 pool
> Equipment
> Before range is chosen in the first round of combat, the vampire with
> this equipment may set range to long (skip the Establish Range step).
> If the opposing vampire has Obfuscate or the opposing ally may play
> (some) cards requiring Obfuscate, you must burn a blood to use NVG's set
> range ability.
> (Art: A vampire with night vision goggles leaning over the top of a
> building, possibly crawling Spiderman like, with a target in view. Or
> if radar, a vampire with a small portable radar (silence, techno-geeks)
> in their hands and the target at the other end of an alley.)
>
> (The above card design is public domain.)
>
> If decks don't have to worry about maneuvering so much, they can spend
> more time on repeat combats when they *do* get S:CE-ed.
Okay, I follow you on the idea here. Though it brings something else
to mind (sort of - well, I thought of something else anyway).
When I originally argued for FS beating S:CE, my thought was that it
would not only help Assamites, but would also help counter S:CE.
Now, if I'm not trying to take care of those 2 birds with one
rulechange, and instead we're adding a card or two, I'd definitely
want to help the Gangrel deal with S:CE as well. The card you mention
would be a subtle help to the Assamites (and I like that the more I
think about it), which may be just what's needed for them, but I don't
think it'd help the Gangrel much. As I mentioned above, I think using
Animalism might be the way to go here, since it not only helps the
Gangrel, but also gives the Nosferatu and Tzimisce more options (I
think they each have only 1 right now).
The card could be something as simple as:
The Swarm
Animalism, Combat
2 blood
Play before range is determined. Opposing minions may not play S:CE
for the duration of this combat.
or
Play before range is determined. This vampire may pay 1 blood to
cancel a S:CE played by the opposing minion.
(Following your good example:)
(The above card design is public domain.)
p.
James Coupe
>there with Potence combat, or better, then why don't we see them?
>Potence combat decks are fairly common I'd say. Why aren't Assamite
>combat decks?
Lots of things here:
- Partly, it's very difficult to prove that's something's bad just
because it's not being played. Before the Betrayer deck, Betrayer would
obviously have had no use at all. Before OOT Rotschreck Malkavian
decks, Rotschreck was seriously underused and should be upgraded.
Whatever.
- Partly cost. The cards necessary to potence deck creation were dirt
cheap under the whole $5 Jyhad box system that happened in a number of
places. You could go out and buy hundreds of Potence cards for very
little money. Assamites have needed Ancient Hearts or Final Nights for
much of their bite, neither of which have been the cheapest of sets.
- Partly time. Brujah or Nosferatu combat have been around longest
simply because they were released first. Had the cards for the
Assamites been in Jyhad, the situation could be very different.
- Partly metagame. Lots of metagames shift into the whole "S:CE is
easy" and find it hard to move out, due to a lack of innovation or
whatever. Certainly, S:CE is powerful but it is not all powerful. A
set of dynamic players will help destabilise the expectations that S:CE
can be used for everything.
- Partly timing. Sabbat War came out, then Final Nights, now
Bloodlines. No-one's had chance to sit down and fully explore the new
cards sets yet, or play with them a lot.
Lots of reasons.
>>
>> Precisely what defence do you suggest they mount?
>
>Providing I'm not using an Obedience deck,
Which limits defence to a very small section of the game.
>in combat against an
>Assamite deck packing all the cards they'd need to secure the above,
>I'd do nothing and hope the Assamite deck clumped. That doesn't seem
>too unlikely, since they're packing Weakness, maneuvers to ensure
>range, Blur, Psyche!, cards to get into combat and the actual strike
>cards.
Obviously, you wouldn't necessarily need to play all the cards all the
time. Weakness could be scattered liberally, without being a focus of
the deck, for instance.
Also, you've now created a situation where if you get in combat, the
other deck dies. It's that simple. Clumping becomes a significant
problem in, say, a Brujah pot/cel deck precisely because of the multiple
defences possible e.g. a single Deer Rifle. There are now so few corner
cases for defence against this S:CE nullifying Assamite deck that they
only need the cards for as many minions as they need to kill, and no
spares.
>That's the best I can do off the top of my head,
That's really lousy. You *want* a situation where the only defence
against Assamites is Obedience? (Or potentially Voice of Madness?)
That's utterly ludicrous.
>but again, if the
>Assamites can do this so well, why don't we see them more often?
Because lots of people have it ingrained on their conscience that you
can't play the Assamites because they're rubbish?
>> If you give it to Celerity, you give it to the Brujah and Toreador who
>> certainly don't need much help.
>
>True, they don't really need help. It'd give them more options,
>that's for sure.
Given that with regards the Assamites, more options has ended up with
you deciding that the only useful defence would be luck (cycling) or
Obedience, I'd really rather you didn't let the Brujah have more
options, thanks all the same.
>> So, you give it to Quietus or Assamites. And in both cases, you give it
>> to Fida'i. One of the best ways of dealing with anti-S:CE is permanent
>> weenies.
>
>You lost me here, unless you meant "...dealing with *S:CE*..."
>Okay, reading what follows, you must've.
Erm, I think it was meant as "providing yourself with anti-S:CE" or
similar.
>If you mean using Sacrificial Lamb isn't an option available to many
>others, that's true. Most other combat decks can't do that. They
>can, however, diablerize and use Ritual of the Bitter Rose, if they
>wish to risk a Blood Hunt. Not quite as good, but close.
Ritual requires blood to be left there; Sacrificial doesn't.
>If you mean using weenies, I disagree. There are a ton of Potence
>weenies to throw around.
2 capacity weenies with Potence (Quietus) and Celerity, regardless of
the downside? That you can fill a deck with and not contest? That you
can bring to a table and contest with no-one? That can deal lots of
unpreventable damage as well?
That's a big difference.
>> >Doable, yes. I'd think a deck that uses a 3-card combo per round
>> >wouldn't be very consistent though.
>>
>> You'd be surprised. Bum's Rush, Flash, Torn Signpost, Undead Strength,
>> Taste of Vitae can turn up with frightening regularity - if that's what
>> your deck is built for.
>
>Yes, but that Potence deck uses a 2-card combo each round.
True, but for many Potence decks in S:CE environments, that's
effectively the same thing.
> Not a 3 or
>4-card combo. The Bum's Rush and Torn Signpost are once each combat.
>The Assamite deck has to, each round, secure long range, give
>themselves First Strike, strike, then Psyche!.
Has to? No. Range is do-able - Celerity provides it in spades. Or
even, god help us, a gun. The Brujah need to be able to set range too,
as do the Nosferatu. Setting range isn't a big issue, relatively.
First strike isn't essential - unless that's the anti-S:CE mechanism you
decide upon, by changing the rules. (Since the other option floating
round is a card, rather than a rules change.) If it *is* providing you
with the anti-S:CE option, you don't need Psyche! - they can't have
ended combat. But you would probably need Blur, maybe a couple of
strikes.
>Now, if I'm not trying to take care of those 2 birds with one
>rulechange, and instead we're adding a card or two, I'd definitely
>want to help the Gangrel deal with S:CE as well.
Alternatives would allow the Gangrel to deal with combat in a similar
way to the Assamites - giving them deadly combat which can, effectively,
only be foiled by S:CE. Or, alternatively, playing them more middle of
the road in terms of forward moving combat.
>The Swarm
>Animalism, Combat
>
>2 blood
>Play before range is determined. Opposing minions may not play S:CE
>for the duration of this combat.
Quite powerful, especially given that it would be playable on blocks.
(Tzimisce, Ravnos Shadow Boxing/Week of Nightmares, Gangrel etc. The
Nosferatu are probably less likely.)
I'd prefer that to be an action modifier, as the action is announced.
Wild at Heart
Animalism
Action Modifier
1 blood
Only usable when this acting vampire's action is announced.
[ani] This vampire has +1 strength for the duration of this action.
[ANI] As [ani] above and if, during the first round of any combat that
occurs during this action (including from blocks), the opposing minion
plays "Combat Ends" as a strike, this vampire may burn one blood to
cancel that strike; the opposing minion chooses another strike, which
may not be a "Combat Ends" strike.
(Public domain.)
That way, it's not as powerful as Immortal Grapple (hand jam) but it's
also more flexible.
Shaun McIsaac
> and voila!
Skill cards are tough pill for combat to swallow, as you really don't
want to jam up waiting for the master.
> > It's nice to stop that obedience, sure. But I don't see the assamites
> > using PC as a S:CE hoser when they can just psyche.
> I believe there was some sort of complaint about Psyche! being
> inefficient because it doesn't exactly trump S:CE, it just starts
> another round. I'm pretty sure that's why I was suggesting this in
> the first place.
Well, PC is at least as inefficient as psyche, as it cost 2 blood to
stop a card they might have (you have to play it each time you want to
prevent the S:CE, as opposed to psyche that 'cancels' it when it
happens).
> > > Why does a non-combat deck *care* whether the opponent S:CEs or not?
> > FoM, and to a lesser extent majesty and earth meld give the person
> > playing them a rather large advantage.
> FoM, maybe. The others, again, does it really matter that much? If
> their strategy relies heavily on your blocking them so that they can
> untap, simply stop blocking them.
The Assamites can't vote down damage votes and they can't easily
deflect bleeds. The only vampire with AUS cel obf qui is Tariq, and
there are only three with cel obf qui dom (Badr al-Budur, Thetmes, and
Ur-Shulgi). It's possible to deflect but by no means is it easy to be
reliable with them. There are three vampires with cel obf qui and
votes, all of whom are 10+ cap, so voting down damage votes isn't
going to be easy either.
> > > If First Strike beats everything, again, what could a *non-combat* deck use
> > > to beat the Assamites?
> >
> > A gun. Mark V is nice for this, as is deer rifle, but they all work.
>
> True, sometimes. Of course, against either of these, the first time
> the Assamite *is* able to get the better of you, you're probably dead.
I'd doubt it. If their first strike is not aggravated, you'll
probably get a chance to shoot them with that gun. This is a problem
if it's Mark V or the Ivory Bow.
> > The constant barrage of manuevers will dry out the assamites supply
> > rather quickly, and the damage coming back at them is important since
> > qui combat cost so damn much. The ivory bow is pretty much a death
> > knell as well, and it isn't that hard to fit into a deck.
> Sideslip? I auto-include that in almost any combat deck with Celerity
> in it.
The deck you listed was already at 66 cards, putting in enough
sideslips to matter -- and having CEL instead of cel -- is going to
really start constricting your deck. Assamite combat isn't really
good without superior QUI, so now we're looking for CEL QUI obf. This
leaves you with a 5 cap, 2 8s, 2 9s, 2 10s, and an 11, with no AUS,
and only 2 with dom so consistently being able to deflect just went
out the window. This leaves you rushing backwards which as we all
know is fundamentally a chore. Defending yourself from any kind of
serious forward action in any other way will be nearly impossible.
When your crypt is Ur-Shulgi, Husamettin, Thetmes, and Al-Asharad, and
your predator drops down Pentex on your first guy and Mind Numb on the
second, the game will be over real quick.
> > > Would be sufficient to prove just how wrong the idea is. Again, the
> > > question is: "What could a non-combat deck use to survive this?"
> > > Xian
> > > Answer: nothing.
> > You need to shadow feint, flash, and taste to stop the ivory bow one
> > time, and since you can't diablerize, there's no reason the minion
> > with the bow won't haunt you repeatedly. The deer rifle takes 1/4th
> > of your manuevers away each time you want to strike at long range,
> > other guns take 1/6th (and all do damage unless you feint a
> > torporizing blow).
> How much of the "non-combat" deck are you devoting to guns and
> equipping said guns now? Just curious. :) And at what point does it
> cease to become a non-combat deck?
Assuming you already had some way of taking +1 stealth actions, guns
aren't that hard to work in. Additionally, if you get into combat
with someone who doesn't have ranged strikes, having that gun will
save you from a hand strike each combat, which means that, if you're
blood dolling from that minion, 2 combats and the gun paid for itself.
If you aren't capable of taking +1 stealth actions without being
blocked, and you aren't a combat deck, just what are you doing?
> Xian
Cameron
> "Shaun McIsaac" <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> wrote in message
> news:8f507d2e.0201...@posting.google.com...
> [uniqueness]
> > Easy enough with the "not so unique" cards ala HG. It's a bit tougher
> > when someone diablerizes a vamp and the thing shows up again. Or the
>
> It was an impostor? Rumors of his demise were greatly exaggerated?
> Chimerstery? Massive Dominate?
Don't forget a fleshcrafted double, possession... or because the
story teller said so.
> > palace of versaille gets burned down and another one shows up, like
> > ppl aren't going to notice the palace is in another part of town or
> > something.
>
> Maybe they rebuilt the darned thing?
What! those wacky french.
> Xian
Cameron
Patrick Harris
> Patrick Harris <pha...@sfopera.com> writes:
> >[Why aren't Assamite combat decks a common sight if they're just as good as Potence combat decks?]
>
> Lots of things here:
>
> - Partly, it's very difficult to prove that's something's bad just
> because it's not being played. Before the Betrayer deck, Betrayer would
> obviously have had no use at all. Before OOT Rotschreck Malkavian
> decks, Rotschreck was seriously underused and should be upgraded.
> Whatever.
True, but both of the decks you describe are trick decks. Assamites
are *supposed* to be great at combat. And we're not talking about
single cards, we're talking about a whole clan.
> - Partly cost. The cards necessary to potence deck creation were dirt
> cheap under the whole $5 Jyhad box system that happened in a number of
> places. You could go out and buy hundreds of Potence cards for very
> little money. Assamites have needed Ancient Hearts or Final Nights for
> much of their bite, neither of which have been the cheapest of sets.
I'll go with you on this, but it's sketchy. I'd say most of the
players have plenty of Final Nights, and I'm sure the vets have enough
Ancient Hearts. Perhaps not as much as they'd like, none of us do,
but enough.
> - Partly time. Brujah or Nosferatu combat have been around longest
> simply because they were released first. Had the cards for the
> Assamites been in Jyhad, the situation could be very different.
Could be.
> - Partly metagame. Lots of metagames shift into the whole "S:CE is
> easy" and find it hard to move out, due to a lack of innovation or
> whatever. Certainly, S:CE is powerful but it is not all powerful. A
> set of dynamic players will help destabilise the expectations that S:CE
> can be used for everything.
I don't think S:CE is too powerful. The power level is fine. I think
it's too easy. Thus the lure to use it.
> - Partly timing. Sabbat War came out, then Final Nights, now
> Bloodlines. No-one's had chance to sit down and fully explore the new
> cards sets yet, or play with them a lot.
I agree with you on this one. The Lasombra and Tzimisce have seen
great amounts of play, and they haven't been around as long. The
Setites have seen plenty as well. Though I think we all agree that
the Assamites were weak out of the gate, and the designers are trying
to catch them up now.
> >> Precisely what defence do you suggest they mount?
> >
> >Providing I'm not using an Obedience deck,
>
> Which limits defence to a very small section of the game.
No different than S:CE. Again, I don't think S:CE is too powerful.
Just too common. Every discipline could have a prime strategy for
dealing with combat when the particular deck does not want to be in
combat. I just don't think it should be S:CE for so many of them.
> >in combat against an
> >Assamite deck packing all the cards they'd need to secure the above,
> >I'd do nothing and hope the Assamite deck clumped. That doesn't seem
> >too unlikely, since they're packing Weakness, maneuvers to ensure
> >range, Blur, Psyche!, cards to get into combat and the actual strike
> >cards.
>
> Obviously, you wouldn't necessarily need to play all the cards all the
> time. Weakness could be scattered liberally, without being a focus of
> the deck, for instance.
This is my point. You don't need to play them all, but you do need to
have them all ready.
(Are you meaning to say Disease instead of Weakness, against Gangrel?)
> Also, you've now created a situation where if you get in combat, the
> other deck dies. It's that simple. Clumping becomes a significant
> problem in, say, a Brujah pot/cel deck precisely because of the multiple
> defences possible e.g. a single Deer Rifle. There are now so few corner
> cases for defence against this S:CE nullifying Assamite deck that they
> only need the cards for as many minions as they need to kill, and no
> spares.
That's just plain wrong. Not true. There are still several ways to
stop this deck. For one, just hit them as hard as or harder than they
hit you. There are several decks that can do this. A Tremere deck
should do okay, and Tremere combat will eat the above deck. Many
Ventrue decks will basically ignore it. Any deck that can do
aggravated damage at long range will match up with the deck as well.
And, as you say, metagame. If the Assamites do start turning up, so
will other ranged damage decks.
> >That's the best I can do off the top of my head,
>
> That's really lousy. You *want* a situation where the only defence
> against Assamites is Obedience? (Or potentially Voice of Madness?)
>
> That's utterly ludicrous.
No, I don't want that. Thinking I would is ludicrous.
As I said, that was just off the top of my head. I've listed other
defenses above.
> >but again, if the
> >Assamites can do this so well, why don't we see them more often?
>
> Because lots of people have it ingrained on their conscience that you
> can't play the Assamites because they're rubbish?
I don't think I've said that they're rubbish. I've said that IMO they
aren't as strong as they should be, particularly in combat. And I
don't want Assamites to be able to destroy anything they meet in
combat. I want them to be able to do as well as anyone else.
> >> If you give it to Celerity, you give it to the Brujah and Toreador who
> >> certainly don't need much help.
> >
> >True, they don't really need help. It'd give them more options,
> >that's for sure.
>
> Given that with regards the Assamites, more options has ended up with
> you deciding that the only useful defence would be luck (cycling) or
> Obedience, I'd really rather you didn't let the Brujah have more
> options, thanks all the same.
Those aren't the only defenses, despite the fact that those were the
only ones I could think of immediately when I responded previously.
More variety would be a good thing, I would think.
> >> So, you give it to Quietus or Assamites. And in both cases, you give it
> >> to Fida'i. One of the best ways of dealing with anti-S:CE is permanent
> >> weenies.
> >
> >You lost me here, unless you meant "...dealing with *S:CE*..."
> >Okay, reading what follows, you must've.
>
> Erm, I think it was meant as "providing yourself with anti-S:CE" or
> similar.
>
> >If you mean using Sacrificial Lamb isn't an option available to many
> >others, that's true. Most other combat decks can't do that. They
> >can, however, diablerize and use Ritual of the Bitter Rose, if they
> >wish to risk a Blood Hunt. Not quite as good, but close.
>
> Ritual requires blood to be left there; Sacrificial doesn't.
Yep. SL is better.
> >If you mean using weenies, I disagree. There are a ton of Potence
> >weenies to throw around.
>
> 2 capacity weenies with Potence (Quietus) and Celerity, regardless of
> the downside? That you can fill a deck with and not contest? That you
> can bring to a table and contest with no-one? That can deal lots of
> unpreventable damage as well?
>
> That's a big difference.
I meant that swarming with weenies is an option available to other
clans. Many others. Unlike Quietus, most of the other disciplines
are found on a ton of vampires of capacity 3 and under. IMO, the
Assamites needed Fida'i to make up for the fact that there aren't ton
of vampires with Quietus, let alone weenies with it.
There are plenty of 2-3 capacity Potence weenies that don't have
downsides, and that don't need Celerity because they can play IG. The
can't do unpreventable damage, but they also don't need as many cards
in their combo. I don't think contestation is that big an issue, as
there are plenty of weenies to choose from.
> >> >Doable, yes. I'd think a deck that uses a 3-card combo per round
> >> >wouldn't be very consistent though.
> >>
> >> You'd be surprised. Bum's Rush, Flash, Torn Signpost, Undead Strength,
> >> Taste of Vitae can turn up with frightening regularity - if that's what
> >> your deck is built for.
> >
> >Yes, but that Potence deck uses a 2-card combo each round.
>
> True, but for many Potence decks in S:CE environments, that's
> effectively the same thing.
>
>
> > Not a 3 or
> >4-card combo. The Bum's Rush and Torn Signpost are once each combat.
> >The Assamite deck has to, each round, secure long range, give
> >themselves First Strike, strike, then Psyche!.
>
> Has to? No.
To ensure the same results as the above Potence combo, I think so.
> Range is do-able - Celerity provides it in spades. Or
> even, god help us, a gun. The Brujah need to be able to set range too,
> as do the Nosferatu. Setting range isn't a big issue, relatively.
I think it's an issue. The Assamite has to play/use a card to get to
long range. The Potence deck doesn't have to play a card to set range
to short. Range is an issue because the strike cards we're describing
require the Assamite to be at long range, which requires a card.
> First strike isn't essential - unless that's the anti-S:CE mechanism you
> decide upon, by changing the rules. (Since the other option floating
> round is a card, rather than a rules change.) If it *is* providing you
> with the anti-S:CE option, you don't need Psyche! - they can't have
> ended combat. But you would probably need Blur, maybe a couple of
> strikes.
Hmm... I can't remember my exact thought process there. I believe FS
was the anti-S:CE mechanism (with rule-change included). If so, then
you do still need Psyche!, as your opponent can still S:CE after your
First Strike resolves.
Going with a card that disallows or negates S:CE is better I think.
That card still has to be included in the combo, but it and Psyche!
should be interchangable, so that takes 1 card out of the combo.
> >Now, if I'm not trying to take care of those 2 birds with one
> >rulechange, and instead we're adding a card or two, I'd definitely
> >want to help the Gangrel deal with S:CE as well.
>
> Alternatives would allow the Gangrel to deal with combat in a similar
> way to the Assamites - giving them deadly combat which can, effectively,
> only be foiled by S:CE. Or, alternatively, playing them more middle of
> the road in terms of forward moving combat.
The Gangrel are pretty strong in combat as they stand now, with S:CE
and prevention being the best counters for opponents to use. The
Assamites are meant to be go after people in combat, but the Gangrel
weren't necessarily. They were definitely meant to be combat hearty.
They can intercept well, but that just leads to combat. So perhaps
the help for them could be a reactionary card, rather than a normal
combat, action or action modifier.
> >The Swarm
> >Animalism, Combat
> >
> >2 blood
> >Play before range is determined. Opposing minions may not play S:CE
> >for the duration of this combat.
>
> Quite powerful, especially given that it would be playable on blocks.
> (Tzimisce, Ravnos Shadow Boxing/Week of Nightmares, Gangrel etc. The
> Nosferatu are probably less likely.)
Actually, I'd like to see it used more when blocking I think. Perhaps
"only usable when this minion has successfully blocked" or even a
Reaction.
> I'd prefer that to be an action modifier, as the action is announced.
>
> Wild at Heart
> Animalism
> Action Modifier
> 1 blood
> Only usable when this acting vampire's action is announced.
> [ani] This vampire has +1 strength for the duration of this action.
> [ANI] As [ani] above and if, during the first round of any combat that
> occurs during this action (including from blocks), the opposing minion
> plays "Combat Ends" as a strike, this vampire may burn one blood to
> cancel that strike; the opposing minion chooses another strike, which
> may not be a "Combat Ends" strike.
>
> (Public domain.)
>
> That way, it's not as powerful as Immortal Grapple (hand jam) but it's
> also more flexible.
I do like the card, but an Action Modifier might be a better solution
for the Assamites, rather than for Animalism.
p.
Xian
> Skill cards are tough pill for combat to swallow, as you really don't
> want to jam up waiting for the master.
Hmm. Not entirely sure about that. I tend to include a few skill
cards in most combat decks I play, but yes, it would be a pain to have
to wait for the skill card to get THA to make Perfect Clarity go.
Which is really why you don't do this, in practice.
> > I believe there was some sort of complaint about Psyche! being
> > inefficient because it doesn't exactly trump S:CE, it just starts
> > another round. I'm pretty sure that's why I was suggesting this in
> > the first place.
>
> Well, PC is at least as inefficient as psyche, as it cost 2 blood to
> stop a card they might have (you have to play it each time you want to
> prevent the S:CE, as opposed to psyche that 'cancels' it when it
> happens).
I realize this. I'll quote myself from a previous message in this
thread:
"It'd be funny to play, though I doubt it'd work well. PC also has a
high cost, which means that it can't be used that much. At the right
time, it's killer, though."
Again, I was mostly mentioning PC as pre-emptive, which seemed to be
your problem with Psyche!, previously...that if you played one, the
opponent could simply S:CE again next round. You really can't have it
both ways. (Well, at least with the current cardset, and I'm not sure
I'm in favor of a card that is pre-emptive at one level, and a
"two-for-one" at the other leve.)
[does S:CE matter to a non-combat deck]
> > FoM, maybe. The others, again, does it really matter that much? If
> > their strategy relies heavily on your blocking them so that they can
> > untap, simply stop blocking them.
>
> The Assamites can't vote down damage votes and they can't easily
> deflect bleeds. The only vampire with AUS cel obf qui is Tariq, and
Okay, to start off with, I was talking about non-combat decks in
general, not Assamite non-combat decks. And actually, most (I said
*most*) Assamite non-combat decks I can think of are pretty much
screwed from the start. I don't really see how you turned this into
Assamite non-combat must be able to vote or deflect, etc. Those
aren't the only was to deal with pressure. Bloating is just as good,
and isn't too hard for the Assamites.
> there are only three with cel obf qui dom (Badr al-Budur, Thetmes, and
> Ur-Shulgi). It's possible to deflect but by no means is it easy to be
> reliable with them. There are three vampires with cel obf qui and
> votes, all of whom are 10+ cap, so voting down damage votes isn't
> going to be easy either.
Again, you don't need to take either of these options, because as you
mention, they are sucky.
[what can non-combat decks use against Assamite FS?...guns?]
> > True, sometimes. Of course, against either of these, the first time
> > the Assamite *is* able to get the better of you, you're probably dead.
>
> I'd doubt it. If their first strike is not aggravated, you'll
> probably get a chance to shoot them with that gun. This is a problem
> if it's Mark V or the Ivory Bow.
The first strike not being agg is a big *if*, IME. Sideslip works
fine against the bow, and the Mark V is impressive, I guess, but it's
not the be-all-end-all of combat.
> The deck you listed was already at 66 cards, putting in enough
> sideslips to matter -- and having CEL instead of cel -- is going to
> really start constricting your deck. Assamite combat isn't really
> good without superior QUI, so now we're looking for CEL QUI obf. This
Who needs obf? :)
As a crypt for CEL/QUI, I'd go with the following:
Parminedes
Abd al-Rashid
Yusef, Scribe of Alamut
Jalal Sayad
Zahir, Hand of the Silsila
Tariq, the Silent
Parnassus
and give some consideration to Akram and Fatima. And simply include a
few QUI skill cards. qui isn't that much worse than QUI...by focusing
on CEL, you should be good to go.
> leaves you with a 5 cap, 2 8s, 2 9s, 2 10s, and an 11, with no AUS,
> and only 2 with dom so consistently being able to deflect just went
> out the window. This leaves you rushing backwards which as we all
What is this fixation with being able to deflect?
> know is fundamentally a chore. Defending yourself from any kind of
> serious forward action in any other way will be nearly impossible.
Probably true. I don't see this as a problem. It's annoying, but not
that hard to do.
> > How much of the "non-combat" deck are you devoting to guns and
> > equipping said guns now? Just curious. :) And at what point does it
> > cease to become a non-combat deck?
>
> Assuming you already had some way of taking +1 stealth actions, guns
> aren't that hard to work in. Additionally, if you get into combat
Don't simple +1 stealth actions get blocked in your neck of the woods
if it's an action to equip a weapon?
> If you aren't capable of taking +1 stealth actions without being
> blocked, and you aren't a combat deck, just what are you doing?
Standard Ventrue Law Firm?
:)
Xian
Patrick Harris
> pha...@sfopera.com (Patrick Harris)...
> > > > I don't think the change has to be drastic. Of course, that point of
> > > > view depends on how drastic one thinks the FS rule change would be.
> > >
> > > Yeah. I think overturning a rule that has been in place for 8 years is
> > > drastic. :)
> >
> > My memory may be fuzzy on this, but were the original Jyhad rules a
> > bit opaque on this? I swear it could be interpreted either way until
> > a clarifying ruleset came out (I think with V:TES). I know my local
> > playgroups played with FS resolving first for a long time, then
> > gradually we changed over.
>
> I threw out my all of my non-current rulebooks a while ago, so I can't
> say for certain. However, checking Google, we find the following:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3dtudn%245me%40darkstar.UCSC.EDU
>
> Wherein Thomas R Wylie indicates that Dodge negates a strike done with
> First Strike, in order to bring it into line with S:CE. Indicating
> that S:CE did indeed beat First Strike in the original ruleset. (Of
> course, this thread also includes a ruling that Rotschreck targets the
> vampire inflicting the damage, but that was later overturned...)
Yeah. When Jyhad first hit the seen, my friends and I all played, but
we didn't go to tournaments or look for rulings on the web. We just
kinda voted on things that we weren't sure about. Then we played with
them that way. It wasn't until after Dark Sovereigns (Thoughts
Betrayed) that I started looking for an authoritative source for
rulings and such.
> > [Xian doesn't think Assamites need any help]
>
> Maybe I'll build an Assamite deck sometime soon, to see what I
> *really* think they need. :) Aside from the *one* I just built and
> haven't played yet. Maybe this weekend in a pick-up game.
I have a couple put together. One I'm using to test using the altered
FS-rule (although I'm leaning more towards just adding a card or two
now), and the other to play under the current rules.
> > > Eh. S:CE can stay as it is for all I care. If I'm building a combat > > > deck, I'll include ways to deal with S:CE. If I'm not building a combat > > > deck, I shouldn't care about S:CE.
> >
> > I think you're oversimplifying here. For some combat archetypes,
> > dealing with S:CE just isn't feasible, either because they simply
>
> Combat archetypes:
> Rush
> Intercept
> Bruise & [Bleed|Vote]
I'd actually prefer to break it down a little more for the archetypes,
but these should work.
> > don't have access to the cards needed,
>
> If you mean the disciplines chosen for the deck don't have access,
> then I suppose that's an acceptable argument. However, that really
> only applies to Protean and Animalism. I can live with them not
> having anti-S:CE.
This is more what I mean.
> I've laid this out before, but briefly:
>
> Protean - lots of agg, some prevention and other effects. Doesn't
> need anti-S:CE.
> Animalism - lots of free combat cards, retainer damage. Doesn't need
> anti-S:CE.
I don't think they necessarily need anti-S:CE. What I'd like is to
see S:CE harder to use. Not difficult to use, by any means. Just a
bit harder.
> > or because including those
> > cards would degrade the effectiveness of the deck.
>
> I fail to see how this follows. If your deck isn't effective against
> S:CE and you want it to be, then you must include anti-S:CE to make it
> more effective. If your deck isn't effective against S:CE, and you
> want it to be, but you won't add the cards to make it effective
> against S:CE, then you have to live with that decision (to not be
> effective against S:CE). If your deck isn't effective against S:CE
> and adding anti-S:CE will make it less effective, it must be a pretty
> awful deck...or not be a combat deck.
I was unclear here. I should have said that including those cards
(and this goes for adding Library cards or adding Crypt cards in order
to have access to those anti-S:CE cards) would degrade the combat
efficiency of the deck. If you've got a tight deck that combos well
in combat - anything you add dilutes that potency. When I say this,
I'm referring to something like an Assamite deck similar to the one
you mention below.
> > > I think that they are good at combat,
> > > just not against the ultimate combat trump. They're good against everyone
> > > else. Assassins for hard targets.
> >
> > Ah, but the ultimate combat trump is everywhere. I mean who can't
> > S:CE these days?
>
> Again, a lot of this is an argument against Presence including S:CE,
> rather than anything else.
Yeah, maybe it is. So I'd still like to see S:CE be a little more
difficult to use then.
[using intercept, specifically DotS, in an Assamite deck will dilute
their combat effectiveness]
> > > I dunno. They've got that AUS QUI card now...that could make Assamite
> > > intercept really really deadly. I've traded most of mine away, though.
> > > Wanted to play with it, but I got an offer I couldn't refuse.
> >
> > Right, but adding in a discipline still dilutes the deck, regardless
> > of how many Assamites already have that discipline.
>
> I'm not sure how you're meaning "dilutes the deck". If I build a deck
> that intends to take advantage of Draught of the Soul, it is build
> around vampires that have aus qui or AUS QUI. Therefore, the library
> will be built to these specifications, and have cards in it that
> represent the vampire selection.
>
> Unless, of course, you mean dilute = include larger minions, but I
> don't necessarily see this as a drawback in and of itself.
Adding larger vampires might hurt you in that you'll be slower to get
rolling (only 1 vamp less than a 7-cap), but that's not really what I
meant.
Kind of how I look at it is that if you want to be able to intercept
well and do well in combat (dealing with S:CE effectively), each
aspect has to give a little for the other to work. I mean you build
it from scratch and balance it, sure, but every card you add for one
side of that deck weakens the other side. Adding any
intercept-related cards could weaken the deck's combat ability, which
is especially important when you have to burn the opposing minions to
use Draught of the Soul.
And if I think Assamites have a hard enough time being effective in
combat (which I do), then adding the intercept component to the deck
makes it even harder.
(You know, reading that, I don't know if I clarified myself at all.
Geh.)
[Adding new cards could have unforseen effects, just like changing a
rule]
> Yes, but IME, changes to cards are accepted better than waffling on
> fundamental rules. How annoying would it be to have FS changed to
> beat S:CE, etc. and then a couple months later, changed right back. I
> know a lot of people that would be incredibly upset by this. :)
What? No way!
> > that, either way, it's thoroughly tested and/or thought out prior to
> > introducing the new card or rules change. Which is why we throw these
> > things around in threads.
>
> Also true. But "thoroughly tested" is really a fiction.
Maybe instead I should say "hopefully tested to the point that any
addition or alteration isn't completely outrageous, although it may
still be proven to be so". =)
> [Assamite tactics]
> > I think we're both talking from the point of view of our local
> > metagames. I think I may see more games where the minions are making
> > out better than the methuselahs, and you may see more games where the
> > minions are damaged goods.
>
> Perhaps. Around here, I tend to do most of the damaging. :)
Heh. Seems like around here everyone tends to go with combat decks at
the same time, and that they usually match up well enough that the
combatants do a hell of a lot of clawing, shooting, smashing or
whatever, only to both be mostly full of blood when combat ends.
> > > Alternatively:
> > > Rush, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, S:CE, Assamite
> > > plays Psyche, 3 unpreventable with FS, opponent takes the damage, rinse,
> > > wash, repeat. High card cost, but nigh unstoppable. I could build a deck
> > > around it. Wouldn't work every single time, but it's doable.
> >
> > Doable, yes. I'd think a deck that uses a 3-card combo per round
> > wouldn't be very consistent though. 4 cards per round if you want to
> > keep your vampires healthy with Taste of Vitae.
>
> Rush, Torn Signpost, IG, Blur. Goes up to 5 with ToV. Highly doable.
> I do it frequently. And win. :)
Yeah, but in that combo you're using each of them once per *combat*.
You don't have to go multiple rounds like the Assamite deck. They'd
have to have each of their cards every round. You can wait a turn or
so to get the cards you need before taking the action. When that
Assamite plays the Psyche!, he needs to have those cards again.
> [Tremere with For/Cel screw the Assamites]
> > Oh come on, Xian! If they didn't TB, they just stay at long range,
>
> TB is a good option, yes.
>
> > Thefting the blood back that they lose to the Assamites' damage each
>
> Losing game, especially against agg.
Nah. We're daydrea- er... discussing a Tremere combat deck with
For/Cel. They'd prevent the agg. If the Assamite didn't use agg, in
effect you'd have the Assamite losing 2 for each Tremere strike, and
the Tremere losing 1 for each Assamite strike.
> > round. At least, until they could fire off a Walk and/or a Blood to
> > Water to stop the Assamite from playing any more of those nasty cards.
>
> Assuming they get to second round, which is unlikely.
Nah. Look up there. ^
> > that we shouldn't. But to respond, if they aren't supposed to beat
> > combat decks, and they have a tougher time against most non-combat
> > decks (due to S:CE), what do they do?
>
> No, I agree that they should be able to beat combat decks, they just
> shouldn't be able to beat each and every other combat deck out there,
> which they would with FS beating everything else.
Yeah, I'm thinking that adding a card or cards is the better option
now. (Though I still think FS should have beaten S:CE all along.)
> [anti=master]
> > Hmm... don't know if I agree with you here. I think the Master Phase
> > is a basic building-block, same as stealth/intercept and bleeding.
>
> It's a basic function of the game, but the game rarely hinges on it.
>
> > You don't *have* to include it (or ways to deal with it), but I think
> > you have to consider it.
>
> This is why it isn't a building block. You *have* to think about how
> (or if) you're going to deal with the aspects I mentioned, but lots of
> people just ignore the masters.
Do they actually ignore masters, or do they just not put them in their
decks? If a master hits the table that's affecting things negatively
for that person, do they ignore it? I don't think that's ignoring
masters any more than the rush deck ignores voting and bleeding.
p.
Noal McDonald
> I don't really see how you turned this into
> Assamite non-combat must be able to vote or deflect, etc. Those
> aren't the only was to deal with pressure. Bloating is just as good,
> and isn't too hard for the Assamites.
Here's where I inject a bit of sanity into the discussion.
The best defense against vote decks is Delaying Tactics. It's free, it
requires no disciplines and it beats Presence action mods (which you
should wait for before playing DT). For Assamites, toss in Alamut
along with about 8 DTs and that should be plenty enough to slow down
most vote decks. Of course, that's not even getting into old
fashoined, brown bagged intercept which beats the vast majority of
vote decks.
As for not being able to deflect bleeds, there is another route. Major
Boon, when used intelligently, works just as well. I'd also like to
point out there are 7 Assamites with at least inferior Auspex, making
Telpathic Counter and Banner of Neutrality available to reduce bleeds.
Regards,
Noal McDonald
VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>Here's where I inject a bit of sanity into the discussion.
>
>The best defense against vote decks is Delaying Tactics. It's free, it
>requires no disciplines and it beats Presence action mods (which you
>should wait for before playing DT). For Assamites, toss in Alamut
>along with about 8 DTs and that should be plenty enough to slow down
>most vote decks.
Do you seriouslly think this is a good idea? Not being offensive,
just really curious.
Player A plays a KRC, you play DT. So he saves that for next turn,
and starts playing the Praxis S or whatever else he has in hand
instead. Going to DT that too? You better have 2 DT minimum every
turn then just to respond to the vote deck, which makes your deck
practically useless.
Granted the PS may not matter that much, but the point is that any
vote deck is going to have at least 2+ votes that will kill/cripple
its prey.
Banishment anyone?
T
Marty
DT is a great card, but it's designed to do exactly what is says -
Delay tactics. That Praxis Seizure may not need stopping, but that
KRC might mean the difference between you killing someone and you
being killed. I think 8 is excessive in any deck (couldn't be
bothered to check what deck they were talking about so I *might* be
wrong about this), but they are certainly one of the best vote defence
cards if you yourself have little or no titles/intercept. Just choose
your target wisely and they will see you ok.
Martin